Thread: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020187

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
In an effort to buddy up to the Russians, Trump goes and reveals classified information, dealing with the possibility of the use of laptops to hide explosives.

The deal of it is, based on the information, the Russians will be able to reverse engineer the data and learn a lot about the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States and its Allies.

And there is no such thing as collusion with the Russians. Nothing to see here, just move on.

[edited thread title]

[ 17. May 2017, 05:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Outrageous. He should have already been impeached before this could happen.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I didn't notice mention of the use of laptops as IEDs in the piece. (British customs officer at Heathrow once asked me suspiciously why, as an editor/writer, I didn't have my laptop (I guess that it didn't occur to him that I could buy one, or, just, you know, use pen and paper). I guess that I won't have to answer that one anymore.)

The funny thing about this current accusation is, that as much as GWB was about 40-60W, he was never accused of this sort of inanity. How many "small gaffes" must accumulate before the aggregate reaches critical mass and the Praetorians lose patience with Trump?

[ 16. May 2017, 01:21: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
PG

You are right, it only says Trump revealed information about an ISIS operation. If you go to the link provided in the Times Article to a previous Washington post article, Trump tells his Russian friends, "You won't believe the intelligence I am getting..." and then spills the beans.


CNN, though, reports it was about the ISIS plan to use laptops to carry explosives on planes.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
This isn't one of his silly gafs. Betraying an intelligence source like this is incredibly stupid.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Why is this no surprise whatsoever?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
If true.

How come the Washington Post has got wind of this an hour after the meeting?

The White House has denied it - which is perhaps not a wise thing to do if the Russians decided to tell their side of the story and confirm it - if true, of course.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Just taking a break from reading a rather appalling report about abuse in Australia..

In fact the WH hasn't denied the content of the WP report, they've just said the President never did something that the report hasn't alleged that he did do - name/out the intelligence source.

To oversimplify the report, it is said that the POTUS was boasting to the Russians about his access to fantastic intelligence and gave as an example something about a specific threat in a specific place. Enough information to identify the source and to put the foreign intelligence service network (who never gave permission for the release of the information to the Russians) at risk.

It also appears to be true that the POTUS can tell anyone he likes about "classified" information, the problem is that intelligence sources might be rather more hesitant about sharing what they know if they think blabber mouth is going to be telling the Russians about it.

The only saving grace I can see here is that Trump seems unable to distinguish between things he sees on Fox News and things he sees in intelligence reports, so he's just as likely to be spreading rumour and false news as real intelligence.

I guess the Russians know that and presumably take all that he tells them as potentially tainted.

[ 16. May 2017, 07:38: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just taking a break from reading a rather appalling report about abuse in Australia..

In fact the WH hasn't denied the content of the WP report, they've just said the President never did something that the report hasn't alleged that he did do - name/out the intelligence source.

To oversimplify the report, it is said that the POTUS was boasting to the Russians about his access to fantastic intelligence and gave as an example something about a specific threat in a specific place. Enough information to identify the source and to put the foreign intelligence service network (who never gave permission for the release of the information to the Russians) at risk.

It also appears to be true that the POTUS can tell anyone he likes about "classified" information, the problem is that intelligence sources might be rather more hesitant about sharing what they know if they think blabber mouth is going to be telling the Russians about it.

The only saving grace I can see here is that Trump seems unable to distinguish between things he sees on Fox News and things he sees in intelligence reports, so he's just as likely to be spreading rumour and false news as real intelligence.

I guess the Russians know that and presumably take all that he tells them as potentially tainted.

If any of our "sources" is harmed or taken in for questioning then Trump deserves a fork up his butt. Rook, your adopted country needs you now.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Update in case anyone cares: Trump has tweeted that he shared some intelligence with the Russians because he had the "right" to do so as POTUS.

That's nice, isn't it?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I thought the Russians were good guys though. Obviously the women are atrocious.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If true.

How come the Washington Post has got wind of this an hour after the meeting?

Most of the speculation is that the leak was a deliberate decision by some person or group within the U.S. intelligence community to prevent the Russians from using the threat of revealing this intelligence failure (in multiple senses of the term) for blackmail. You can't blackmail someone with information that's already public.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Someone who was there leaked it. Which is going to make Trump very pissed off.

Or possibly, I suppose, some covert listening was going on. Which is also likely to make Trump very pissed off.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Update in case anyone cares: Trump has tweeted that he shared some intelligence with the Russians because he had the "right" to do so as POTUS.

That's nice, isn't it?

So they've gone from denying the fact (NB: not its legality or otherwise) to admitting it in the space of a few hours.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Update in case anyone cares: Trump has tweeted that he shared some intelligence with the Russians because he had the "right" to do so as POTUS.

That statement is just the same as you noted in your prior post: technically the President can disclose "classified" information to anybody he chooses. So he does have the "right" to do it. He is not being accused of doing anything illegal--just mind-numbingly stupid.

AIUI, the source is one that has been leery sharing any information with the U.S. I guess the source is uncertain we can be trusted. And then the President goes and blabs it to another party that the source did not choose to give the info to. The logical consequence of this is that this source and others like this source will be far less likely to disclose intel to the U.S. in the future--because we really can't be trusted with it.

So, in bragging about the "great intel" he gets, Trump has seriously damaged our ability to get that "great intel."
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Update in case anyone cares: Trump has tweeted that he shared some intelligence with the Russians because he had the "right" to do so as POTUS.

That's nice, isn't it?

So they've gone from denying the fact (NB: not its legality or otherwise) to admitting it in the space of a few hours.
This is standard procedure at this point. Story comes out, White House advisers go into crisis mode and come up with a carefully worded denial, then Trump goes full Leeroy Jenkins and blows the whole thing.

All we need now is for Senator McConnell to say that this doesn't change anything, and we can wait for the next one.

On the lighter side, our local gem of a newscaster tweeted last night, "Can every elected official in Colorado who expressed concern about Clinton's emails just send me a statement so I'm not making 300 calls?"
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I'm a little surprised that there is no speculation as to who the ally is. Two and a half occur to me. Or am I being obtuse? ("Yes" is an acceptable answer.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I'm a little surprised that there is no speculation as to who the ally is. Two and a half occur to me. Or am I being obtuse? ("Yes" is an acceptable answer.)

I think we can be fairly sure it is someone who doesn't want the Russians knowing how they're getting intelligence about IS.

Which could be because if the Russians knew, they'd be sharing it with their best mate Assad.

Which probably means it is either one of the dissident anti-Assad groups or the Israelis. Given that the Israelis have previously talked about their worries about sharing things with the Americans - and the risks of it being shared with Assad via the Russians - I think that's got to be one of the most likely scenarios.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I'm a little surprised that there is no speculation as to who the ally is. Two and a half occur to me. Or am I being obtuse? ("Yes" is an acceptable answer.)

As I recall, the Washington Post made a point of stating that it was not disclosing details like that--for the same reason that the President should not have. The information remains highly classified for mere mortals who are not President and I think most media outlets are treading carefully not to be accused of divulging too much.

And, really, the name of the ally is not the story. The loose lips of the President hurting U.S. interests and betraying his country to curry more favor with his Russian buddies is the story.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
If it was Turkey, that meeting with President Erdogan this morning should be fun for all parties involved.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:


And, really, the name of the ally is not the story. The loose lips of the President hurting U.S. interests and betraying his country to curry more favor with his Russian buddies is the story.

The really stupid part of this whole story is this: the POTUS has a reputation for spreading as much rumour as fact. If the WP had not run with this story it is possible that the Russians might have shrugged it off as rumour he'd picked up from Fox News.

But in running the story, the WP has now encouraged Trump to admit that he told the Russians something. Which might in turn mean that the Russians give it more credence than they did during the meeting.

Or maybe it is a double-bluff and someone is using Trump's egoism against him. For whatever reason, someone wanted the Russians to swallow something, so told Trump (who, it seems, is unable to distinguish between intelligence and rumour), knowing that he'd tell the Russians.

We now have denials by senior members of the administration, but only confirmation by Trump himself. Is it too much of a mind-bending idea to think that this is a set-up and that Trump is too far up his own anus to realise that he's been set up?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:


And, really, the name of the ally is not the story. The loose lips of the President hurting U.S. interests and betraying his country to curry more favor with his Russian buddies is the story.

The really stupid part of this whole story is this: the POTUS has a reputation for spreading as much rumour as fact. If the WP had not run with this story it is possible that the Russians might have shrugged it off as rumour he'd picked up from Fox News.

But in running the story, the WP has now encouraged Trump to admit that he told the Russians something. Which might in turn mean that the Russians give it more credence than they did during the meeting.

Or maybe it is a double-bluff and someone is using Trump's egoism against him. For whatever reason, someone wanted the Russians to swallow something, so told Trump (who, it seems, is unable to distinguish between intelligence and rumour), knowing that he'd tell the Russians.

We now have denials by senior members of the administration, but only confirmation by Trump himself. Is it too much of a mind-bending idea to think that this is a set-up and that Trump is too far up his own anus to realise that he's been set up?

He receives intelligence briefings. This information was likely part of those.
Whilst it is apparently true that staff slip him info, real and fake, to further their own agendas, the briefings are the most likely source of this particular information.
It is irrelevant, though in regards to his fitness as President. He believes it to be real, therefore he is acting inappropriately and dangerously.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is it too much of a mind-bending idea to think that this is a set-up and that Trump is too far up his own anus to realise that he's been set up?

I think the popular expression for over-thinking Trump's actions is "five-dimensional chess".

[ 16. May 2017, 15:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm not sure it is overthinking though: if you want to sell the Russians on some dodgy intelligence, tell it to Trump.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Anyone feeding something to Trump under the impression they can be sure what he's going to do with it is as dangerous as he is.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure it is overthinking though: if you want to sell the Russians on some dodgy intelligence, tell it to Trump.

If this is actually what is happening, this country is well and truly fucked. What you are describing is a secret coup by the intelligence community. And I don't know how you keep something like that under your hat. I for one think this is too complicated to possibly be true.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Update in case anyone cares: Trump has tweeted that he shared some intelligence with the Russians because he had the "right" to do so as POTUS.

That's nice, isn't it?

But the emails! The emails!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If this is actually what is happening, this country is well and truly fucked. What you are describing is a secret coup by the intelligence community. And I don't know how you keep something like that under your hat. I for one think this is too complicated to possibly be true.

Explain how we know about this. Either the Intelligence Community is somehow lying to the POTUS (in which case the WH itself leaked this information) or the IC is leaking classified information used in discussions between the POTUS and foreign powers to the WP.

Either way, I think you can fairly say your country is fucked.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Oh I thought by now we all understood that part as facts already in evidence
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Just listened to the White House daily press briefing. It was very short. The White House is not denying that something was shared now.

General McMasters is now saying the conversation was not inappropriate because the president has the right to share any information he wants. But the question they are not answering is whether the information should have been shared.

Now it is coming out that the Russian meeting was not even revealed until after the fact. The American press did not know of the meeting until the TASS photos came out! Good grief.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If this is actually what is happening, this country is well and truly fucked. What you are describing is a secret coup by the intelligence community. And I don't know how you keep something like that under your hat. I for one think this is too complicated to possibly be true.

Explain how we know about this. Either the Intelligence Community is somehow lying to the POTUS (in which case the WH itself leaked this information) or the IC is leaking classified information used in discussions between the POTUS and foreign powers to the WP.

Either way, I think you can fairly say your country is fucked.

How we know about what? Trump fucking up an telling the Russians something that was supposed to be a secret? Trump running his mouth and potentially alienating an ally or getting a source killed?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

Now it is coming out that the Russian meeting was not even revealed until after the fact. The American press did not know of the meeting until the TASS photos came out! Good grief.

They did know about it, they were explicitly barred. Before the fact there were all sorts of reports complaining about precisely that-- that the Russian media were allowed access and the US media were not.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
And Congress, of course, kept silent. Could you imagine the outcry if Barack Obama had done something like that?

The man never should have been inaugurated. The election should have been declared invalid.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Presidents have had slogans and mottos.

Harry Truman - The Buck Stops Here

Barak Obama - Yes We Can

Donald Trump - Hold My Beer
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I wonder how long it will be before Mr. Putin moves into the White House? Some of his staff seem to be there already, airing the beds.

IJ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Why not get into bed with Russia. Better than getting fried.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Wadderyouknow, the intelligence came from Israel.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Allegedly. They will not confirm, it is quite possible no one will. Cheeto is the most likely to do so.
The White House is more concerned about how news of Trump's lunacy leaks than keeping the stupid fucker in line.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
In the US military, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, if a soldier were to give away that type of information, s/he would be subject to 35 years in prison. That is during peacetime.

If s/he did it during war, and it resulted in the loss of military personnel, s/he would be subject to capital punishment.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
BTW, T periodically makes noises about stopping White House press briefings altogether, and sending out memos instead.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
On the grounds that National Security has always been one of the top reasons claimed to vote Republican (and Republicans normally score consistently higher in polling on whether they can be trusted with the security of the country, etc) is the fact that Trump can't be trusted in such matters going to have a serious knock-on effect in 2018? The fact that Troy Lucan congresspeople are starting to sound pretty worried (all the major news sources have them willing to subpoena) would suggest to me that they are scared of being seen to be part of the same party as Trump.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Anyone seen those vids apparently of Turkish security beating protesters outside the WH? Crazy.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Marsman wrote:

quote:
On the grounds that National Security has always been one of the top reasons claimed to vote Republican (and Republicans normally score consistently higher in polling on whether they can be trusted with the security of the country, etc) is the fact that Trump can't be trusted in such matters going to have a serious knock-on effect in 2018?
To some extent, but there is a section of his fan base that will pretty much rationalize away anything that he does. Either they think Putin is actually a pretty good guy to be allying with(knows how to deal with those pesky minorities, ie. the Alt-right view), or "Sure maybe Trump said something he shouldn't have but WHAT ABOUT HILLARY'S E-MAIL SERVERS AND BENGHAZI?!

[ 17. May 2017, 07:57: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think Trump's defence is likely to be along the lines that all these leaks amount to an orchestrated coup attempt by the Deep State.

At this point they are perhaps a necessary evil but I think in their own way, they are further damaging the democratic institutions Trump has already ripped into.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think Trump's defence is likely to be along the lines that all these leaks amount to an orchestrated coup attempt by the Deep State.

At this point they are perhaps a necessary evil but I think in their own way, they are further damaging the democratic institutions Trump has already ripped into.

I think you are right to the extent that if/when the pressure gets so much that some kind of action is taken against Trump and/or his administration, there is going to be an enormous backlash. Whilst the anti-Trump protesters in the main have been peacefully marching, the alt-right sees no prohibition on violence to get their way.

I can't really agree that the leaks themselves are damaging democratic institutions, though. In extraordinary times, you have to do extraordinary things - and if the POTUS is acting as an agent for Russia, it is hard to think that the IC shouldn't be alerting the public and doing something about it.

I dunno, I can't see this ending well with Trump and the alt-right slipping off into the darkness, unfortunately.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
If it WAS Israeli intelligence that Trump gifted to the Russians, that could be inadvertant payback for Jonathan Pollard allegedly stealing info for Israel to trade with the Soviets back in the day.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Nice thought Stetson but DT even know about the Pollard affair?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Nice thought Stetson but DT even know about the Pollard affair?

Well, that's why I said "inadvertent". No, I don't think he was intentionally exacting revenge for Pollard.

As for whether he knows about the Polalrd case, my impression is he's the kind of guy follows the news regularly, if superficially. So yeah, he probably at least knew about it when it was going on, and whenever Israel cranked up the lobbying for Pollard's release. (Remember also that in NYC, Israel and related issues get discussed even at the level of municipl politics.)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Er, any objective analysis anywhere?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As good as it gets. He broke a golden rule but that's what he does. The Institute will modify what it reports to Langley from now on.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I think my favourite leak came from the White House aides who said (off the record) that El Presidente’s comment to the Russians must have been unintentional because he’s too thick to understand the written briefings.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Now Putin is offering to help clear up the misunderstanding:
quote:
Vladimir Putin has offered to release a record of Russian officials' meeting with Donald Trump
That's what you call maximum trolling.

[ 17. May 2017, 13:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Republican Congressman Al Green is cutting to the chase
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think Trump's defence is likely to be along the lines that all these leaks amount to an orchestrated coup attempt by the Deep State.

At this point they are perhaps a necessary evil but I think in their own way, they are further damaging the democratic institutions Trump has already ripped into.

I have already seen some Trump supporters making the coup argument. (I used the coup word above, but I had a different concern- if the Deep State were to determine that Trump was a national security threat, but then keep him in place to try to pass on bad intelligence to the Russians in some sort of John LeCarre type conspiracy, I would consider that a coup.)

I have been listening to Dan Carlin's history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and two hours in, we are still talking about the early atomic age. He suggests that the advent of atomic weapons caused one of the most fundamental Constitutional changes in our history, right up there with the Civil War. Because you might need to deploy an atomic weapon at a moment's notice, it can't require an act of Congress. So they decided to place that decision in the hands of the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces (i.e., the President). That lead to a situation where the President needed constant updates on what was happening in Russia, China, and other hot spots, so that he could be ready at a moment's notice to give the order. To fulfill that need for constant information, we created the CIA and the NSA. 9/11 builds on that- now, the President needs constant information about what various dangerous groups are up to, so that he can make in the moment security decisions.

So there is at least an argument that the entire security apparatus has always been damaging to democratic institutions and separation of powers. Although I think that many of us will accept that this is just a necessary reality now. For a long time, it was logistically impossible to seriously strike the US homeland, and we could get along without this kind of thing. Now? We probably need it, although we would be a lot happier if it were being handled by a more competent individual.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Republican Congressman Al Green is cutting to the chase

I'm wondering if there comes a point where the Republicans realize that Trump is squandering their moment, and just decide to be rid of him. McConnell was quoted as saying that they need fewer distractions coming from the White House. There's a way to do that, although you risk alienating the hard core Trumpkins.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I can't remember in which of the various Lyin' Don threads I mentioned this. But we have been trying to puzzle out what, if anything, he could do to finally and permanently alienate his party, so that they throw him over the side. So far we have come up dry.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think Trump's defence is likely to be along the lines that all these leaks amount to an orchestrated coup attempt by the Deep State.

At this point they are perhaps a necessary evil but I think in their own way, they are further damaging the democratic institutions Trump has already ripped into.

A similar argument could be made about the leaks by Daniel Ellsberg and Mark Felt back in the 1970s. It seems downright perverse to argue that exposing presidential criminality (like obstruction of justice) is more damaging than presidential criminality itself. I'd argue that the automatic deference to a president's ability to cover up wrongdoing is way more damaging to "democratic institutions" than career civil servants (a.k.a. "the deep state") providing accurate information to the public (you know, the folks who are supposed to be practicing democracy) about presidential wrongdoing.

[ 17. May 2017, 14:51: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here is an eloquent cri de coeur which has Some Language but is a free click. All the people who only watch Fox News shall never see it, alas. There is a divide in our news and communications now.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Republican Congressman Al Green is cutting to the chase

quote:
Today on the floor of the Congress of the United States of America, I will call for the Impeachment of the President between 9am & 10am CST.
An hour-long impeachment trial would hardly be enough.

Misplaced modifiers reign supreme in modern grammar, it would seem.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I think it is too soon to call for impeachment.
Not that it isn't warranted, but because support will likely not be strong enough yet. Too many Republican'ts not willing to admit their mistake.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is an eloquent cri de coeur

Absolutely true. Should be required reading for all.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Now Putin is offering to help clear up the misunderstanding:
quote:
Vladimir Putin has offered to release a record of Russian officials' meeting with Donald Trump
That's what you call maximum trolling.
I find nothing funny in what Trump is doing, nor the knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) defense of him that many Republicans are engaged in, but I have to admit that the news that Vlad the Putin is offering to give us his rendition of what was said caused me to laugh out loud.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Republican Congressman Al Green is cutting to the chase

quote:
Today on the floor of the Congress of the United States of America, I will call for the Impeachment of the President between 9am & 10am CST.
An hour-long impeachment trial would hardly be enough.

Probably not, but what a lovely thought. Imagine if this whole nightmare were done by 10 am CST! Here on the West Coast we could wake up to a brand new day. I would skip work and take the kids out of school for a holiday at the beach, eating ice cream and romping in the waves. We'd cook hot dogs over a bonfire as we watch the sunset and not come home until we were slightly sunburnt and completely encrusted in salt & sand.

(of course the next day I'd wake up to the reality of President Pence, but still...)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems downright perverse to argue that exposing presidential criminality (like obstruction of justice) is more damaging than presidential criminality itself.

I was careful in what I wrote, and that wasn't what I wrote.

This is not "both sides are bad". It's saying that when the intelligence community has to proceed by stealth, as it were, to attempt to corrall a presidency, which I fully agree has done more damage and set the ball rolling, it is likely to inflict further damage on the institutions.

If that's not addressed, it gives the "deep state" derp more traction.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here is an eloquent cri de coeur

Absolutely true. Should be required reading for all.
I love how the repeated "we are so f*****" reads like the refrain of a liturgy. It would make a wonderful lament psalm.

Best line:

quote:
If you’re Christian & voted for Trump, Jesus would walk on the other side of the street & pretend to be on the phone if he saw you coming.

 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think Trump's defence is likely to be along the lines that all these leaks amount to an orchestrated coup attempt by the Deep State.

At this point they are perhaps a necessary evil but I think in their own way, they are further damaging the democratic institutions Trump has already ripped into.

I have already seen some Trump supporters making the coup argument. (I used the coup word above, but I had a different concern- if the Deep State were to determine that Trump was a national security threat, but then keep him in place to try to pass on bad intelligence to the Russians in some sort of John LeCarre type conspiracy, I would consider that a coup.)

I have been listening to Dan Carlin's history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and two hours in, we are still talking about the early atomic age. He suggests that the advent of atomic weapons caused one of the most fundamental Constitutional changes in our history, right up there with the Civil War. Because you might need to deploy an atomic weapon at a moment's notice, it can't require an act of Congress. So they decided to place that decision in the hands of the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces (i.e., the President). That lead to a situation where the President needed constant updates on what was happening in Russia, China, and other hot spots, so that he could be ready at a moment's notice to give the order. To fulfill that need for constant information, we created the CIA and the NSA. 9/11 builds on that- now, the President needs constant information about what various dangerous groups are up to, so that he can make in the moment security decisions.

So there is at least an argument that the entire security apparatus has always been damaging to democratic institutions and separation of powers. Although I think that many of us will accept that this is just a necessary reality now. For a long time, it was logistically impossible to seriously strike the US homeland, and we could get along without this kind of thing. Now? We probably need it, although we would be a lot happier if it were being handled by a more competent individual.

Competent like 3 nuclear holocausts avoided in less than 3 years Kennedy? “I can go into my office and pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” Nixon? REAGAN?!!! Black Hawk Down and Rwanda Clinton? 9 x I'll close Guantanamo Obama?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

(of course the next day I'd wake up to the reality of President Pence, but still...)

So, on one hand is an unstable, unpredictable person who might inhibit Republican removal of citizen's rights and privileges but is affecting America's credibility and stability and could cause more war. And on the other hand is a person who will restore a sense of stability, but who will go full steam towards widening the gap between rich and poor.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
but I have to admit that the news that Vlad the Putin is offering to give us his rendition of what was said caused me to laugh out loud.
Thing is though, if you're someone who is ready to be convinced that Trump did nothing wrong, and if Putin's minutes appear to show nothing irregular about the meeting, then that's probably gonna be enough for you to persist in your belief that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

(of course the next day I'd wake up to the reality of President Pence, but still...)

So, on one hand is an unstable, unpredictable person who might inhibit Republican removal of citizen's rights and privileges but is affecting America's credibility and stability and could cause more war. And on the other hand is a person who will restore a sense of stability, but who will go full steam towards widening the gap between rich and poor.
Yep. Like I said, the first day would be awesome and we'd celebrate as a family. The next day the hangover kicks in.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Competent like 3 nuclear holocausts avoided in less than 3 years Kennedy? “I can go into my office and pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” Nixon? REAGAN?!!! Black Hawk Down and Rwanda Clinton? 9 x I'll close Guantanamo Obama?

Sort of the fundamental question of the entire podcast is if humans are really up to the task of handling a weapon that can destroy civilization. (And given that we probably aren't going back to a pre-atomic age voluntarily, the only way we get a definite answer is if the answer is no.) A whole lot of history would suggest that it is human nature for the two biggest players on the block to go at it at some point, and for no holds to be barred when that happens. And we have a relatively small sample of men who have actually had to make calls based on that amount of power- in the United States, we're on lucky number 13 (unless you ask Alexander Haig- [Razz] ).

But even if you determine that no one is totally up to the task, there are certainly people who are closer to being up to it than Trump.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There is a good recent episode of Radiolab about the nuclear chain of command. Worth listening to and reflecting.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A Trump supporter was on about this on the BBC earlier today, and was waxing lyrical about how the media were always on about Trump but not about the felon Clinton. Which comment was not picked up on. Surely she is not a felon if not charged, tried and convicted of a felony?
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Speaking as someone who struggles with the at times uncontrollable urge to correct people when they misuse criminal common law terms (no, a house cannot be robbed), it rarely goes over well.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A Trump supporter was on about this on the BBC earlier today, and was waxing lyrical about how the media were always on about Trump but not about the felon Clinton. Which comment was not picked up on. Surely she is not a felon if not charged, tried and convicted of a felony?

Yes I heard that. He was about as persuasive and as in touch with reality as Kellyanne Conway.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think Trump's defence is likely to be along the lines that all these leaks amount to an orchestrated coup attempt by the Deep State.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems downright perverse to argue that exposing presidential criminality (like obstruction of justice) is more damaging than presidential criminality itself.

I was careful in what I wrote, and that wasn't what I wrote.

This is not "both sides are bad". It's saying that when the intelligence community has to proceed by stealth, as it were, to attempt to corrall a presidency, which I fully agree has done more damage and set the ball rolling, it is likely to inflict further damage on the institutions.

I'm having trouble getting "proceed by stealth" from a series of public releases of (presumably) accurate information. Widespread publicity is not something that's usually associated with "stealth", but it is associated with successful leaks. The only problem would seem to be if the leaks are either a) false or b) true but compromise something with a legitimate need for secrecy. A legitimate need for secrecy does not include covering up wrongdoing by the powerful.

I've seen a lot of arguments along these lines so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but the argument you're advancing boils down to claiming that it's better for democracy if a president has confidence that his underlings will be complicit in covering up his wrongdoing than if he knows someone will eventually spill the beans on his high crimes and misdemeanors. I'd argue the reverse, that democracy is in a lot more trouble when the powerful know they can successfully conceal their wrongdoing than when they know the truth will eventually come out.

At its root democracy depends on the decisions of the people, and that is made impossible if the powerful can successfully conceal important and relevant facts.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A wicked suggestion I have seen (I have far too wide a circle of wicked acquaintance) is that Hillary Clinton should be named FBI director. We'd be able to hear heads exploding right across the amber waves of grain up to the base of the purple mountains majesty.

This should amuse, a roundup of WH staffers' moaning. Surely working for the T must be as close to damnation as you can get in this mortal life. He is the most toxic boss imaginable.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Trump's incompetence and recklessness probably spell his doom. Basically, the election chose a candidate who is unfit for purpose. Too vain and too stupid to leave it to subordinates while he plays golf.

I think it's only a matter of time, now.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks for the link, Brenda - 'stewards of a syphilitic emperor' has a grand ring to it!

IJ
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
AP now reporting House oversight committee to hold a hearing in a week, including with testimony by Comey.

A week sounds like a lifetime from now given the 3 a day fire drills out of the White House.


******


Meanwhile, Ebola is going on again and I wonder if anybody at the White House has bothered to think about that?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is a proverb that a day can be a year in politics. We're going to test that, for sure. With the train barreling down on him, he's going to be like a rat in a trap. I wouldn't want to be his caddy at the club in New Jersey this weekend.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is a proverb that a day can be a year in politics. We're going to test that, for sure. With the train barreling down on him, he's going to be like a rat in a trap. I wouldn't want to be his caddy at the club in New Jersey this weekend.

THIS weekend Donald Trump will be in either Saudi Arabia or Israel. I'm certain that nothing bad could possibly come of that fact. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Is that still on? There were calls for it to be cancelled. If that happens he'll be like a toddler deprived of a carousel ride.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is a proverb that a day can be a year in politics. We're going to test that, for sure. With the train barreling down on him, he's going to be like a rat in a trap. I wouldn't want to be his caddy at the club in New Jersey this weekend.

THIS weekend Donald Trump will be in either Saudi Arabia or Israel. I'm certain that nothing bad could possibly come of that fact. [Roll Eyes]
Visiting Israel right now might prove extremely awkward, to say the least.

One of my conspiracy minded lefty friends (let's face it, pretty much all my friends right now are conspiracy minded lefties) has suggested that, with the trap closing in and knowledge of Comey's paper trail, he'll take advantage of the fact that we don't have an extradition treaty with Saudia Arabia and just not come back. Perhaps eventually settling in a cushy villa somewhere in a Russian resort town. One can only help he takes his friends Tillerson, Sessions, and Bannon with him.

I'm guessing he'd find Chechnya to his liking. I'd love to trade this basket of deplorables for every single LGBTQ person living in the region.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One can only help he takes his friends Tillerson, Sessions, and Bannon with him.

And McConnell and Ryan and, of course, Pence.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Meanwhile, Ebola is going on again and I wonder if anybody at the White House has bothered to think about that?

Oh, good! It has been at least 24 hours since they blamed something on Obama. Ebola will do the trick nicely.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
I just had an interesting factoid pointed out to me from the Washington Post's article on the Comey memo.

quote:
Details of Comey’s notes have been shared with a very small circle of people at the FBI and Justice Department, these people said.
Are Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein included in that "small circle of people" and, if so, did the "details . . . shared" include Trump's suggestion/request/order that the Flynn investigation be axed? If that's the case (and, admittedly, there are a lot of "ifs" here), the Comey firing starts to look even worse.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but the argument you're advancing boils down to claiming that it's better for democracy if a president has confidence that his underlings will be complicit in covering up his wrongdoing than if he knows someone will eventually spill the beans on his high crimes and misdemeanors. I'd argue the reverse, that democracy is in a lot more trouble when the powerful know they can successfully conceal their wrongdoing than when they know the truth will eventually come out.

These are not the only two alternatives.

The intelligence community in particular needs to exercise the power its access and knowledge grants it in a restrained fashion. Or did you see Comey's briefing on the ongoing Clinton e-mail investigation prior to the election in the same light*?

*No, this is not an attempt at "but her emails".
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
... One of my conspiracy minded lefty friends (let's face it, pretty much all my friends right now are conspiracy minded lefties) has suggested that, with the trap closing in and knowledge of Comey's paper trail, he'll take advantage of the fact that we don't have an extradition treaty with Saudia Arabia and just not come back. Perhaps eventually settling in a cushy villa somewhere in a Russian resort town. One can only help he takes his friends Tillerson, Sessions, and Bannon with him. ...

Oh, please, please, yes.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm guessing he'd find Chechnya to his liking.

He can only hope his Chechen/Russian is better than his English. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
So Robert Mueller redivivus gets the nod to head Russiagate.

[ 17. May 2017, 22:24: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
So many great links and posts while I was asleep/ doing other stuff. I wish there was a like function so I could record my applause for each individual without doing a giant post of cut/paste jobs with appreciative comments.

Special Counsel appointed. Our ABC has not been consistent about drawing a distinction between a Special Counsel and a Special Prosecutor, although I understand there is one. I'm sure they'll be on top of it in the next few hours.

Can someone explain in a few short paragraphs how it is that a Special Counsel appointed by the Justice Department is more independent of the White House than the Director of the FBI?

In Australia, I think this sort of thing would be done by a Royal Commissioner, who is a quasi-judicial officer and only capable of being removed if they are very very naughty. No doubt Gee D. will be able to put that more accurately. In fact, I'm relying on him to do so. I have a cold and it hurts to think.

[ 18. May 2017, 00:10: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
MSNBC is reporting that a special counsel can be fired by the president. The countdown starts in 10... 9... 8....
[Help]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Could thwumple be that thick? Surely a few days first?
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
So many great links and posts while I was asleep/ doing other stuff. I wish there was a like function so I could record my applause for each individual without doing a giant post of cut/paste jobs with appreciative comments.

Special Counsel appointed. Our ABC has not been consistent about drawing a distinction between a Special Counsel and a Special Prosecutor, although I understand there is one. I'm sure they'll be on top of it in the next few hours.

Can someone explain in a few short paragraphs how it is that a Special Counsel appointed by the Justice Department is more independent of the White House than the Director of the FBI?

In Australia, I think this sort of thing would be done by a Royal Commissioner, who is a quasi-judicial officer and only capable of being removed if they are very very naughty. No doubt Gee D. will be able to put that more accurately. In fact, I'm relying on him to do so. I have a cold and it hurts to think.

It's all quite complicated.

When Nixon was under investigation by Watergate, he was being investigated by a "Special Prosecutor" (Archibald Cox) who could be fired by the Attorney General, who in turn answered to the President. However, firing the Special Prosecutor in the middle of an investigation of the president would be highly irregular if not unethical, so when Nixon ordered his attorney general to fire him, one attorney general resigned, then the next attorney general resigned, and finally the third in line, when he became attorney general, fired Cox (all in one night!). This was the so-called Saturday Night Massacre.

After Watergate, Congress passed a law creating what was called an "Independent Counsel," which would be appointed by a panel of three judges and could not be fired by the President or anyone who answered to the President. Kenneth Starr, who investigated Bill Clinton leading up to his impeachment (although Clinton was not removed from office) for perjury and obstruction of justice for the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal. Congress didn't like all the Independent Counsels who were investigating them as well, so they let this law lapse and now there are no more independent counsels.

What we have now under existing law is a "Special Counsel," which is like the "Special Prosecutor" that existed during Watergate who CAN be fired by the Attorney General or the President. It would take a new act of congress to reestablish the Independent Counsel, and that is not likely to happen.

Plus congress can create a "Select Committee" that has lots of special resources to investigate something (Like it did with Benghazi and Hillary's emails) - but that is not likely to happen, at least not yet - Congress is investigating Trump and Russia through its normal Intelligence Committees now, which also handle all kinds of other matters.

Congress can also establish a special commission like it did to investigate the 9/11 attacks that is not made up of members of congress, so it is perceived as more independent - although this commission would just issue a report at the end and then congress or the Justice Department could then decide what to do with its findings.

It's complicated, as I said.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
"No politician has ever been treated worse...."

Mussolini and lamp posts come to mind.
Nicolae Ceauçescu and bullets.
General Noriega and loud music.

At first blush.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
45 is so far removed from reality that reality needs to remove him.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Cheers for that Stonespring. Phew!

On the issue of Trump's treatment, surely you don't need to go overseas for examples. Barak Obama was pretty badly treated by the Fox Network I recall. And someone Oh dear I can't remember his name, you know that yellow haired idiot who's presidency is just one shambling disaster after another, questioned his status as an American.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Good grief! We've had, four I think it is, presidents assassinated, Lincoln, McKinley, Garfield and Kennedy, and several more attempted assassinations, surely they were treated worse than Trump!
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
But when you are the sole inhabitant of your own universe, they don't matter
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Trump's grasp of history is about as firm as his grasp of law is about as firm of his grasp of the Constitution is about as firm of his grasp of how to treat others as if you were a decent human being.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
A sign that Trump may now be in serious trouble: the affair is, reportedly, affecting stock market prices. That might start putting more pressure on Congress members.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
"No politician has ever been treated worse...." (Trump)

And South African Twitter begins posting pics of Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years behind bars for fighting apartheid.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
"No politician has ever been treated worse...." (Trump)

And South African Twitter begins posting pics of Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years behind bars for fighting apartheid.

[Killing me] [Overused] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
If Trump is impeached and removed as president where will he go, what will happen to him?
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
... to hide in a germ-free environemt in Trump Tower with all external criticism filtered from his media input stream ?
.

[ 18. May 2017, 08:17: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
He can only hope his Chechen/Russian is better than his English. [Roll Eyes]

Chechen is a bit more obscure but Russian should have some similarities to Slovene.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
"No politician has ever been treated worse...." (Trump)

Mussolini? Ceausescu?

[ 18. May 2017, 08:32: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
... to hide in a germ-free environemt in Trump Tower with all external criticism filtered from his media input stream ?

If he starts that Trump TV network he's talked about, he could watch himself.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That would be my guess.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
LOVE the advice from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to organisers of the forthcoming NATO summit: while its their own decision to try to limit speeches they do note advice from White House officials that Trump's name be mentioned in ...as many paragraphs as we can because he keeps reading if he’s mentioned..., and also that DT likes illustrations - graphs, charts, photographs, etc - in any paper.

In other words, DT has the attention span of a gnat and, like a small child, responds better to a picture-book than straight text.

Who knew that the office of POTUS was now open to people of low intellect with ADHD - the ultimate equal opportunity.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
But this is the single greatest witch hunt in Amercian history!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
LOVE the advice from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to organisers of the forthcoming NATO summit: while its their own decision to try to limit speeches they do note advice from White House officials that Trump's name be mentioned in ...as many paragraphs as we can because he keeps reading if he’s mentioned..., and also that DT likes illustrations - graphs, charts, photographs, etc - in any paper.

In other words, DT has the attention span of a gnat and, like a small child, responds better to a picture-book than straight text.

Who knew that the office of POTUS was now open to people of low intellect with ADHD - the ultimate equal opportunity.

Don't you dare compare his foolishnesss to ADHD. Plenty of brilliant and competent people have ADHD.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
"No politician has ever been treated worse...." (Trump)

Mussolini? Ceausescu?
They weren't ill used. Just deserts.

That's not a defence of Trump. It's challenging the implication, in the context of Trump's whine, that Mussolini and Ceausescu were undeservedly abused. Now, Mandela was someone who you can say was the recipient of gross injustice.

[ 18. May 2017, 13:05: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
He can only hope his Chechen/Russian is better than his English. [Roll Eyes]

Chechen is a bit more obscure but Russian should have some similarities to Slovene.
He's rather slovenly in his doings. And I don't blame his wife.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
LOVE the advice from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to organisers of the forthcoming NATO summit: while its their own decision to try to limit speeches they do note advice from White House officials that Trump's name be mentioned in ...as many paragraphs as we can because he keeps reading if he’s mentioned..., and also that DT likes illustrations - graphs, charts, photographs, etc - in any paper.

In other words, DT has the attention span of a gnat and, like a small child, responds better to a picture-book than straight text.

Who knew that the office of POTUS was now open to people of low intellect with ADHD - the ultimate equal opportunity.

Don't you dare compare his foolishnesss to ADHD. Plenty of brilliant and competent people have ADHD.
Some even have ADSL!
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Now the man baby is complaining no politician has been treated so unfairly....

Has he ever met Nelson Mandela?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I doubt if he'd recognise Mandela's name - and even then, he'd probably dismiss NM (having been shown a picture of him) as just another of those annoying brown people not-like-us....

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Hey, has anyone actually seen Mandela's birth certificate? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I haven't seen this linked to above, so for your entertainment, the latest head shaker from the Washington Post.

At a private meeting of Republican congressional leaders back in June of 2016, the House Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy of California, stated "There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump. . . . Swear to God!"

Not wanting this discussion to go any further, Speaker Ryan told the assembled leaders, "No leaks. . . . This is how we know we’re a real family here."

The best part of the story is that when the Post originally contacted one of McCarthy's staffers about this exchange earlier this week, the staffer denied that it ever happened. Upon being informed that the Post had tape and transcript, he immediately changed his tune, saying it was all a joke.

Now I'm hearing Republicans saying that Trump's comments to Comey about ending the Flynn investigation weren't serious.

You know you are dealing with a bunch of CIS white guys when everyone involved believes that simply saying "I didn't mean anything by that, it was a joke" will clear up everything. (And I say that as a big clumsy CIS white guy myself.)
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Read the transcript of the conversation yourself.

Good old boys shooting the shit? Admission of knowledge? People who should have started asking a lot more questions? Or something else? You be the judge.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Yeah, I'm not sure the punchline of "ha ha, our candidate's a traitor" (McCarthy) should be "no one leak this" (Ryan). I know if you have to explain a joke it's not funny any more, but given that it doesn't seem to have been funny in the first place I think a better explanation is in order.

And yes, it does seems to be the go-to excuse for straight white guys saying something inexcusable. I've seen the same excuse trotted out in an attempt to explain away Trump pressuring Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

quote:
Trump: Knock knock.

Comey: Who's there?

Trump: Drop the Flynn investigation.

Comey: Uhhh . . .

Trump: You're fired!

I guess that kind of sophisticated humor just goes over my head. [Frown]

Other interesting overnight revelations include:


 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Read the transcript of the conversation yourself.

Good old boys shooting the shit? Admission of knowledge? People who should have started asking a lot more questions? Or something else? You be the judge.

I dunno. In my experience, the phrase "Swear to God" is often used when the intended insinuation is something like "Well, I have no way of proving this is true, but ya gotta admit, it sure seems like it could be".

For example: "My sister's boyfriend works a dead-end job, but he drives a Mercedes Benz and always has loads of cash. I swear to God, he's with the mob or something."

So, I'd be willing to believe that Ryan et al were just repeating rumours they had heard, or speculating based on circumstantial evidence.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I doubt if he'd recognise Mandela's name - and even then, he'd probably dismiss NM (having been shown a picture of him) as just another of those annoying brown people not-like-us....

IJ

Yeah, I'm pretty sure only white Americans count...

...but even within that narrow constraint, McKinley, Lincoln, and Kennedy are looking at Trump from their early graves with raised eyebrows...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Read the transcript of the conversation yourself.

Good old boys shooting the shit? Admission of knowledge? People who should have started asking a lot more questions? Or something else? You be the judge.

I dunno. In my experience, the phrase "Swear to God" is often used when the intended insinuation is something like "Well, I have no way of proving this is true, but ya gotta admit, it sure seems like it could be".

For example: "My sister's boyfriend works a dead-end job, but he drives a Mercedes Benz and always has loads of cash. I swear to God, he's with the mob or something."

So, I'd be willing to believe that Ryan et al were just repeating rumours they had heard, or speculating based on circumstantial evidence.

Yeah, if only there were some responsible figure within the Republican party who might take such circumstantial evidence seriously and dig a bit. Maybe the Republican Speaker of the House? I understand he and Paul Ryan are supposedly pretty tight.

Your sister's boyfriend who works a dead-end job and drives a Mercedes is just idle speculation, but if that boyfriend asks if he can store a whole bunch of sealed containers in your basement maybe a little more curiosity is in order?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
And the point of the McCarthy quote was not that McCarthy had verifiable proof of Russian collusion, but rather simply that the GOP had knowledge of the reasonable suspicion of Russian collusion, but went ahead and supported the candidate regardless. Even with the more generous "my sister's boyfriend is a mobster" scenario, the implication is "I think something fishy is going on here".

Of course, the notion that the GOP puts party and special interests above the good of the country is hardly earth-shattering at this point...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This rings true -

From the Huffpost ...

Submitted by Dawn Sardella-Ayres
...

"This is why I think he's TRYING to be impeached: he'll frame it as a "personal attack" by his "enemies." He doesn't want to be POTUS. On some level, he has to know he's a complete failure at it. So this way, he can save face (in his POV), continue to play the victim, and then go on to start the Brietbart-backed TrumpTV, which is how this whole crapfest started in the first place.

He can be back where he prefers, with his mug in front of the camera, no real responsibilities, in an echo-chamber of his fans, whining about how he totally WAS making America great again, but all the liberals/Washington insiders/RINOs/FakeNews/other people obstructed him. Waaaaah!"
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Indeed. And if he can find a cushy armchair seat for 3/4 of the line of succession so we don't end up with a President Pence or a President Tillerson, I'd be cheering it on. Heck, I'd be willing to pledge to tune in for the 20 min a week I could probably manage to suffer thru it without [Projectile] just to keep them constrained to that venue where we can keep an eye on them. I'd consider it an act of public service similar to serving on jury duty.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed. And if he can find a cushy armchair seat for 3/4 of the line of succession so we don't end up with a President Pence or a President Tillerson, I'd be cheering it on.

As an aside, Orin Hatch (president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate) is actually ahead of Rex Tillerson in the line of presidential succession.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed. And if he can find a cushy armchair seat for 3/4 of the line of succession so we don't end up with a President Pence or a President Tillerson, I'd be cheering it on.

As an aside, Orin Hatch (president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate) is actually ahead of Rex Tillerson in the line of presidential succession.
Understood. It's simply that Tillerson IS in the line of succession and that notion scares the **** outta me. Honestly, as much as I'm cheering on the impeachment chants, I'm not seeing a lot of hope anywhere in the line.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
The slimmest Democratic dream would be we manage to hang on (i.e. avoid nuclear meltdown with Trump still at the helm) til the midterms, the Dems regain the house, and Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the house. Then we need to oust both Trump & Pence in quick enough succession that there's no chance for either to appoint & confirm a new VP.

This would be the very definition of a long shot.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The slimmest Democratic dream would be we manage to hang on (i.e. avoid nuclear meltdown with Trump still at the helm) til the midterms, the Dems regain the house, and Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the house. Then we need to oust both Trump & Pence in quick enough succession that there's no chance for either to appoint & confirm a new VP.

This would be the very definition of a long shot.

After impeachment in the House, conviction and removal from office takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate, so unless an investigation that a Democratic House could really push hard comes up with stuff willing to convince a lot of Republicans in the Senate, removing Trump or Pence from office is unlikely.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Excellent analysis from an Australian paper ... the sheer fury of those who think this is a giant fabrication by something called "the meedyas" (yup, I heard one interviewee say that) will send US gun deaths into orbit ...

quote:
What happens then to that significant chunk of the country that would feel the system has robbed them of their president for no reason they respect? It's the kind of disastrous scenario that happens when a nation forgets itself. It's what flows from a politics that is in such a state of institutional disrepair that it has become about nothing more than winning: sacrificing principles on the altar of certain pre-determined political outcomes. Democracy has never truly been about outcomes. It's about process, deliberation, and civic restraint. And just now, that looks like something one of the world's great democracies has left behind.

 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Trump tweet
This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!

He's referring to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. Bear in mind that Trump's mentor was Roy Cohn. A little respect for your teacher's accomplishments, Donald! Is that too much to ask?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The slimmest Democratic dream would be we manage to hang on (i.e. avoid nuclear meltdown with Trump still at the helm) til the midterms, the Dems regain the house, and Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the house. Then we need to oust both Trump & Pence in quick enough succession that there's no chance for either to appoint & confirm a new VP.

This would be the very definition of a long shot.

After impeachment in the House, conviction and removal from office takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate, so unless an investigation that a Democratic House could really push hard comes up with stuff willing to convince a lot of Republicans in the Senate, removing Trump or Pence from office is unlikely.
Here in US, removing Trump from office seems pretty much a certainty right now. Continuing to prop him up would cost the GOP the house, Senate and presidency for at least a generation. The question is not if, but when and how, and most importantly, who comes after him?

The most probable scenario leaves us a President Pence, Ryan or Tillerson, all of which are jumping from frying pan to fire. The above scenario would be ideal, but yes, is improbable as it would require near-perfect timing of an imperfect and uncontrollable process. And it requires the huge sacrifice of living with the Trump presidency another 2 years.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
This from the Walrus, a literate magazine from Canada, which features essays and analysis, may be of interest. Titled "The Authoritarian Next Door".

I thought the initial point about "equality under the law" being one of the most important things in a democracy was well stated.

quote:
n most of the world, powerful people and their relatives can do what they like and there isn’t shit you can do about it. If they run over you with their car, it’s your bad luck. If you offend them, they silence you. Equality under the law provides the basic sense of security that people in advanced democracies consider indistinguishable from personhood itself.

 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
quote:
Here in US, removing Trump from office seems pretty much a certainty right now.
Sadly, not to me. I think we're stuck with him, I wish I could believe differently but I just don't see impeachment happening.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
There are too many Republican't cowards, for one thing. Though, honestly, they are fucked regardless. If they kick him out now, his "wah, everybody is sooo unfair" narrative has more sticking potential with enough Americans. Especially given many of them also do not want to admit their mistake. Trump is unlikely to change, so it will not get better. If he is impeached later, they will look the fools for not doing it sooner.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Each morning I turn on the BBC World service to catch up with what happened overnight.

The last few mornings have been so bizarre I do not think I have taken in the scale of it. And the tweets continue to get more odd...someone take his phone away.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Given that a President Pence would far more effective than President Trump at achieving many of the same policy goals, I think the best (and somewhat realistic?) scenario for Democrats is that Trump loses enough popular support that enough moderate Republicans in the House and Senate think they can get re-elected by opposing him, leading to gridlock until the 2018 elections.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
quote:
Here in US, removing Trump from office seems pretty much a certainty right now.
Sadly, not to me. I think we're stuck with him, I wish I could believe differently but I just don't see impeachment happening.
Well, again, moving too quickly to impeachment could give us worse results (hard as that is to imagine) than the current nightmare. There are very few good scenarios here. I dreamily doodled one but it really is one of those unrealistic wish-dreams, roughly equivalent to "I woke up and it was Nov. 9, 2016 and the whole thing was just a very bad episode of The Americans…"
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Each morning I turn on the BBC World service to catch up with what happened overnight.

The last few mornings have been so bizarre I do not think I have taken in the scale of it. And the tweets continue to get more odd...someone take his phone away.

I was just thinking about how odd it is that part of my morning routine has become checking twitter to see what stupidity the President is tweeting today. We always laughed at countries with wacky, unpredictable leaders. Now I live in one. What a strange world we live in at the moment.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
From superpower pluralism to third world dictatorship in 118 days.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
It seems more like 118 weeks than days. I feel for you across the Pacific.

Some help may be at hand...
quote:
We'll leave you with a final thought from Jim: "I know Trump supporters here who regret that they voted for him. Not because of anything policy-wise, but because he does this to the city."
From an article on the stresses Palm Beach goes through each time T visits.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/mar-a-lago-when-millionaire-bankrupts-entire-town/
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Here in US, removing Trump from office seems pretty much a certainty right now. Continuing to prop him up would cost the GOP the house, Senate and presidency for at least a generation. The question is not if, but when and how, and most importantly, who comes after him?

I'm not sure Congressional Republicans see it that way. Donald Trump has never been particularly popular, as indicated by his second place finish in the popular vote. He is, however, still very popular with Republican voters (~84% approval rating among Republicans during the second week of May 2017, according to Gallup). He is also more popular with Republicans than Congressional Republicans. It's possible that "loose Tweets lose seats", but participating in removing Trump from office would seem to be even more disastrous for Congressional Republicans.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Looks like even Trump's legal talent may struggle now.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
My hope is that T will get so upset about being picked on that he'll take his toys and go home--preferably, by the end of May. (The guy with the nuclear codes attache case should probably hide out in an undisclosed location, to remove temptation.)

Pence would be the new president. I understand that he's a nasty piece of work. But he at least seems more functional than his boss.

Of course, I wouldn't complain if the various investigations prove that Russia really did meddle in the election; if Congress then decides that the Republican campaign and administration is hopelessly tainted and invalid; and if they award the presidency to H, who won the popular vote.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Excellent analysis from an Australian paper ... the sheer fury of those who think this is a giant fabrication by something called "the meedyas" (yup, I heard one interviewee say that) will send US gun deaths into orbit ...

quote:
What happens then to that significant chunk of the country that would feel the system has robbed them of their president for no reason they respect? It's the kind of disastrous scenario that happens when a nation forgets itself. It's what flows from a politics that is in such a state of institutional disrepair that it has become about nothing more than winning: sacrificing principles on the altar of certain pre-determined political outcomes. Democracy has never truly been about outcomes. It's about process, deliberation, and civic restraint. And just now, that looks like something one of the world's great democracies has left behind.

I love that quote. Thanks, Zappa. I have long thought that politics in America truly has devolved simply into "winning" regardless of principle and regardless of what is best for the country. The self-delusion that what is good for the party is good for the country has led to it, and both Democrats and Republicans have long bought into the idea that the good of the party is paramount.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
and if they award the presidency to H, who won the popular vote.

I know it's yonks away, but what are the thoughts on Hillary 2020?

Showing my colours, surely the Democrats have a better candidate. Neither particularly inspired me in 2016 [I confess to being a Bernie fan], however there was only 1 choice -- but then I'm not in the US so who gives a toss what I think? But I do think surely there must be a better candiate than H.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Here in US, removing Trump from office seems pretty much a certainty right now.

I wish I shared that feeling, but I don't. I think it looks more likely than it did 2 weeks ago, and may look even more likely in another month. But to me, that means it looks like a 15% chance now instead of a 10% chance—far from a certainty. But getting closer, little by little.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
and if they award the presidency to H, who won the popular vote.

I know it's yonks away, but what are the thoughts on Hillary 2020?
That's a nightmare scenario as far as I'm concerned. And I voted for her.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Bernie is too old. Hillary's window has closed. The real problem is that the Democrats have no one who seems to be emerging as a valid contender.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
What about Elizabeth Warren?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
There is always Kanye. And the Rock.

Even Kanye cannot be worse than Trump.

[ 18. May 2017, 22:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
and if they award the presidency to H, who won the popular vote.

I know it's yonks away, but what are the thoughts on Hillary 2020?
That's a nightmare scenario as far as I'm concerned. And I voted for her.
Yes, I think that's nightmare territory from this far-off perspective. Nancy Pelosi*, maybe? Bernie will be too old. But the lessons from 2016 are, inter alia

a) get off your arses, libruls
b) don't throw out the toys and pout, libruls, and
c) look to the creative edges sometimes, not the tried and blase
d) come up with creative meaningful fiscal responses to the pain of the underclasses**

* Though personally I think she should have followed the impeach Bush process, for misleading the world (with Blair) was a fairly serious breach of the vows he promised to uphold
** I have long argued that the narrative that I have seen for ever on the Ship and elsewhere about the "middle classes" misses the point. It's the underclasses that are suffering, broken, bitter, clutching at the straw of a Trump (and ironically a Sanders, Corbyn, Macron, whatever) to save them from the hell-hole of forgottenness ... it's the trailer trash who are hurting and who will (have) eventually lead the revolution

[Edit: that would be "bitter", not "butter" [Roll Eyes] ]

[ 18. May 2017, 22:58: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What about Elizabeth Warren?

Definitely Warren. She has a similar appeal to Bernie.

But we also should (as noted several pages back) remember it is early days yet and still plenty of time for someone to emerge from the pack. Rep. Adam Schiff from my neck of the woods is beginning to pick up steam as a leader of the resistance (he's been on Rachel Maddow's show several times, which can't help but endear him to lefty hearts everywhere). There are others as well that could be groomed for the VP slot, especially if you've got a rock star like Warren at the head of the ticket.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Speaking of things Hilary, what the fuck is Lindsey Graham up to? Now that a special counsel has been appointed, he says that he hasn't seen any evidence of a crime yet, so he doesn't know what led to the appointment. (He was in favour of such an appointment, so why the cold feet?) And now he says that Hilary's emails should be revisited because he has reason to believe (refusing to say what that reason might be) that they will reveal some shenanigans between the Clinton campaign and the DOJ, although Comey put the emails to bed, after the damage was done. Surely, had there been improper communication between the Clinton team and the DOJ, that would have been revealed in the course of Comey's investigation.

Does no one in a position of power care for your republic? That's not rhetorical. I imagine that Clapper is a very sad man.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Re Hillary--they'd never give it to her, there's no legal precedent for such a thing. They'll follow the chain of succession.

Re Pence--whatever he is, he is still likely to be more sane (and thus more controllable) than Trump. If you get a sane president you don't like, traditionally you sit on him (er, apply political pressure) until he figures out it's in his best interests to moderate his behavior. We can work with that. We cannot work with a man who IMHO is clearly deteriorating in terms of sanity.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Yeah, but Pence is also sane enough to know how to get things done. How to maintain a decent, honorable public image-- perfect for the GOP right now which is nothing but an empty suit. I fear that Pres. Pence will be only slightly more moderate in his agenda, but far far savvier in how to get it done, and how to woo back the public.

At the same time I do think Pence is sane enough not to start a pre-emptorary nuclear war (other wars, yes, if profitable-- but not a nuclear one). And these days my bar is low enough that that'll do.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re possible candidates:

--Nancy Pelosi is about 77.

--I think Elizabeth Warren is of best use in Congress. She's too combative to be president, and she'd have many more things to be combative about, every day. She'd get worn out! [Biased] She can do great good in Congress, or perhaps as head of Health and Human Services, or some such.

--I'd love to have Hillary take office. That whole thing is a really deep wound for me; and I've managed to bandage it up by rarely thinking about her, and talking about her even less.

But would she still want to do it? Or has she, for the sake of her sanity, managed to move on? Is she still up to doing it, given all the unexpected stress of the way things turned out?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yeah, but Pence is also sane enough to know how to get things done. How to maintain a decent, honorable public image-- perfect for the GOP right now which is nothing but an empty suit. I fear that Pres. Pence will be only slightly more moderate in his agenda, but far far savvier in how to get it done, and how to woo back the public.

At the same time I do think Pence is sane enough not to start a pre-emptorary nuclear war (other wars, yes, if profitable-- but not a nuclear one). And these days my bar is low enough that that'll do.

Your second paragraph is the main thing I care about. I don't want to risk a madman destroying us all just to avoid a guy who'll be gone in 4 years (and if he isn't and he's as bad as all that, we're to blame, esp. after what we should have learned from the Trump fiasco).

By the bye, I am (was?) a Republican. My party has deserted me...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
LC--

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re Hillary--they'd never give it to her, there's no legal precedent for such a thing. They'll follow the chain of succession.

I wonder what they'd do if it were the other way around: a Republican won the popular vote, but a Democrat won the electoral college; there was evidence of both a foreign adversary meddling in the election, and of ye olde "high crimes and misdemeanors"; the Democrat was clearly severely impaired, mentally; and they wanted to save both the country and their party? (And their own asses.)

(For the record: I think the US gov't was wrong, the many times it meddled in the elections of other countries.)

Right this very moment, I'm thinking of (future) First Lady Abigail Adams' counsel to her husband, to "remember the ladies" in setting up the new country, and that women were of a mind not to recognize system of laws that doesn't recognize them. Why any woman would ever trust the system again, particularly Congress and elections, I don't know!

[Mad]

Ah, I feel better now.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
IMHO we ought to cut off presidential candidates from running when they'd take office at age 70 or beyond. The risk of Alzheimer's etc. is too great, especially with how that disease seems to be on the increase in recent years (and not just because of the boomers).
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LC--

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re Hillary--they'd never give it to her, there's no legal precedent for such a thing. They'll follow the chain of succession.

I wonder what they'd do if it were the other way around: a Republican won the popular vote, but a Democrat won the electoral college; there was evidence of both a foreign adversary meddling in the election, and of ye olde "high crimes and misdemeanors"; the Democrat was clearly severely impaired, mentally; and they wanted to save both the country and their party? (And their own asses.)

You still couldn't do it. Not without throwing out the Constitution. They'd just have to suck it up. It's not a matter of political will, it's a matter of "#$%#$! this, there's the Constitution in our way again"--and people notice if you blow it off.

At best they could try for an amendment (ha!) which would take ages (like, years, probably) and do them no good in regards to the current crisis.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I understand that Robert Mueller has a lot of latitude to investigate questions of impropriety regarding Trump/Russian links. It makes me wonder if Mr. Mueller will subpoena Trump's tax returns to look for anything shady in those documents?

The shenanigans at the White House are such a circus; a very scary, horrifying circus with fun house mirrors everywhere.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

By the bye, I am (was?) a Republican. My party has deserted me...

Indeed. As a left-wing pro-life evangelical, I've got some awareness of what it's like when your tribe veers wildly off track. My sympathy.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re possible candidates:

--Nancy Pelosi is about 77.

Sorry, missed that detail ... must be the botox
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
She looks better for her age than the asshole-in-chief does at his.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Thank you, Cliffdweller. [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
She looks better for her age than the asshole-in-chief does at his.

That's not saying much -- I've seen corpses that look better than he does.

(But Nancy does look amazing for her age.)
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
[...] I've seen corpses that look better than he does. [...]

... and that make more sense!
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I saw a current affairs show last night that suggested a certain M. Zuckerburg was considering a run in 2020.

2020 is not that far away. If Trump gets impeached or resigns, Pence won't be able to do too much damage that can't be quickly reversed. Of course the Dems must get it together where it matters in 2018 and 2020.

Remember, from Australia's perspective America's health system continues to be a very bad joke under Obamacare. One thought I had the other day: Are all American hospitals private? Or, to ask in another way, Are there hospitals that are fully run and paid for by one or more Govt entities in America? If not, you guys are so screwed.

Neither Ford nor George WH Bush were tainted by the White House scandals during their terms as VP. I thing George had a weak bladder or something. If only Pence could be caught doing some covering up, that would be brilliant. He was, after all, liasing with Flynn.

Another thought: My impression is that in the 1970's nobody was blaming anyone but the Nixon White House, and the press were the heroes of the hour. This translated to big swings against the Republicans. Here, Republican voters have someone else to blame - the fake news press. Does that mean that there are likely to be smaller swings against the Republicans?

Sorry, all my electoral instincts are set to elections where people who don't care about politics are forced to vote or pay a fine. I find it really hard to imagine the reaction of people in a jurisdiction where voting is both optional and inconvenient.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Remember, from Australia's perspective America's health system continues to be a very bad joke under Obamacare. One thought I had the other day: Are all American hospitals private? Or, to ask in another way, Are there hospitals that are fully run and paid for by one or more Govt entities in America? If not, you guys are so screwed.
Sorry. Shouldn't have put that last bit. I mean, I genuinely believe that America's reliance on the private sector is bad for its social cohesion, but it's not a new thing. I'm applying Australian standards and attitudes to the situation in America and that is wrong, and leads to mistakes. I am hopeful that Americans can work out how to get to a fair and just health system where everyone gets the health care they need regardless of their financial situation from the current situation. I can't see it happening, but that's because of my lack of knowledge, and, admittedly, my prejudice against private sector involvement in things like health care other than to fill in the gaps around a dominant public system.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Remember, from Australia's perspective America's health system continues to be a very bad joke under Obamacare. One thought I had the other day: Are all American hospitals private? Or, to ask in another way, Are there hospitals that are fully run and paid for by one or more Govt entities in America? If not, you guys are so screwed.

Indeed.

You'll find all sorts of arrangements-- public, private, for profit, nonprofit, and lots of weird consortiums of the above. Very very messy-- which helps obscure costs and pricing which is part of the strategy. As detailed in Time's brilliant expose A Bitter Pill, even when a hospital is "nonprofit" all that means is there are no investors making $$ of the institution, but there are still all sorts of administrators pulling down multi- million salaries. In fact, according to the expose, in all but a very few cities in the US the highest paid person in town is the CEO of the local hospital. These same hospitals will engage in fancy fund-raisers that really are an exercise in PR-- the big money is, in fact, in providing essential, life-saving services as greatly inflated prices to involuntary consumers who have no choice but to fork over whatever they ask. Frequently including, pre-ACA and probably post ACHA, their homes (medical bankruptcy being the leading cause of foreclosure before 2014).

So, yeah, screwed we are.


quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Sorry. Shouldn't have put that last bit. I mean, I genuinely believe that America's reliance on the private sector is bad for its social cohesion, but it's not a new thing. I'm applying Australian standards and attitudes to the situation in America and that is wrong, and leads to mistakes. I am hopeful that Americans can work out how to get to a fair and just health system where everyone gets the health care they need regardless of their financial situation from the current situation. I can't see it happening, but that's because of my lack of knowledge, and, admittedly, my prejudice against private sector involvement in things like health care other than to fill in the gaps around a dominant public system.

Many, many of us Americans came to this conclusion long ago.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

By the bye, I am (was?) a Republican. My party has deserted me...

Indeed. As a left-wing pro-life evangelical, I've got some awareness of what it's like when your tribe veers wildly off track. My sympathy.
I read Lamb Chopped's comments and thought almost exactly the same thing for much the same reasons, cliffdweller [Votive]

Meanwhile, back on topic, Zappa's article quote
quote:
Democracy has never truly been about outcomes. It's about process, deliberation, and civic restraint.
resonates with me, too. Democracy ought to be played as an infinite game, not a finite one.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
She looks better for her age than the asshole-in-chief does at his.

[Killing me]
Yeah, but too much tumeric in the fake tan oil and a dead squirrel on your head tends to do that.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Many, many of us Americans came to this conclusion long ago.

I have been crying for you guys, behind the Colbert-inspired laughter. [Votive]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
From a behind-a-paywall article:

quote:
Added to Trump’s troubles is a White House believed to be melting down in conflict and incompetence, an executive in which thousands of positions remain unfilled, and a President so bored with the job that his staff are inserting his name into documents, in order to keep him reading.
I take it the 1000s is hyperbole...or is it? And is it usual for a number of positions to go unfilled 100+ days in?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My hope is that T will get so upset about being picked on that he'll take his toys and go home--preferably, by the end of May. (The guy with the nuclear codes attache case should probably hide out in an undisclosed location, to remove temptation.)

[Smile]

Excuse my ignorance ... are you saying that Trump does not have the power to walk in and press the button? That the decision has to be 'approved' - I sincerely hope so.
It seems quite possible that Trump has some form of mental illness (Megalomania springs to mind) and is it not possible that in one of his huffs he rushes in without thinking? Or is it simply that the decision is made by others and he gets to do the deed - which hopefully offers some comfort for the world?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
...the big money is, in fact, in providing essential, life-saving services as greatly inflated prices to involuntary consumers who have no choice but to fork over whatever they ask. Frequently including, pre-ACA and probably post ACHA, their homes (medical bankruptcy being the leading cause of foreclosure before 2014).
[Mad] [Votive] Meanwhile, on this side of the pond, the government is busily chipping away at our highly efficient NHS (where most of the effort goes into detecting and treating health problems *before* they require expensive trips to A&E) to make it more like the American system.

[edited to change "the Tories" to "the government", in a spirit of fairness; the last Labour government was guilty of this too, though not to the same extent]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Mark--

AIUI, the prez is always accompanied by someone carrying an attache' case that contains the nuclear codes. (Might even be hand-cuffed to it, but I'm not sure.)

I don't think the prez has to get any permission to send up nukes, though maybe it would be a good thing to check with others. I think the idea is that if someone else is threatening us with nukes, or has already sent them, an immediate retaliation might be the only appropriate response.

*Someone* else must have the codes, because what if something happens to the attache' case? At the very least, someone would need to be able to set new codes, in case someone stole the attache case and the original codes.

And, of course, this brings to mind the movies "Fail-Safe" and "War Games", both about what you do in that moment when it looks like you should launch the nukes and other severe weapons.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Thanks for that. Not sure how reassured I am!
Trump appears to me to be his own boss (to put it mildly), to take little notice of anyone else and to act on impulse. I can imagine a scenario where he wants to press the button before anyone else has the chance, someone who actually is only shouting with no real intention. In other words he could mis-read diplomacy WHAT? [Mad]
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
... it's the trailer trash who are hurting and who will (have) eventually lead the revolution
If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Golden Key:
quote:
And, of course, this brings to mind the movies "Fail-Safe" and "War Games", both about what you do in that moment when it looks like you should launch the nukes and other severe weapons.
Yes - thank God for this guy. I hope there are others like him in the US chain of command...
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Further up-thread, Mr. Cheesy linked to a recent Radiolab podcast that looked into the ability of a person down the line of the nuclear chain of command to say "no." Specifically, as the stress of Watergate began to really get to Nixon, there were reports that he was drinking too much. One of the officers at a missile base, who would have had to turn one of the two keys if Nixon ordered a strike, asked his superior how he would know that the order was coming from a sober, sane President.

The questioning offer got his ass canned for even asking. [Ultra confused]

If you can ignore the terrifying context, it becomes and interesting game theory question. On the one hand, if the enemy knows that anyone down the line can abort a strike, it becomes less likely that a strike will actually happen, and your nuclear deterrent starts to really look like a bluff. On the other hand, after 68 years and a lot of close calls but no strikes since retaliation has become a possibility, it's natural to ask if the entire thing is one giant bluff. As I said above, we will never know the answer unless it's no.

On that note, I hope everyone has a nice relaxing weekend...

[ 19. May 2017, 14:31: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Yes, I think that's nightmare territory from this far-off perspective. Nancy Pelosi*, maybe? Bernie will be too old. But the lessons from 2016 are, inter alia

a) get off your arses, libruls
b) don't throw out the toys and pout, libruls, and
c) look to the creative edges sometimes, not the tried and blase
d) come up with creative meaningful fiscal responses to the pain of the underclasses**

* Though personally I think she should have followed the impeach Bush process, for misleading the world (with Blair) was a fairly serious breach of the vows he promised to uphold
** I have long argued that the narrative that I have seen for ever on the Ship and elsewhere about the "middle classes" misses the point. It's the underclasses that are suffering, broken, bitter, clutching at the straw of a Trump (and ironically a Sanders, Corbyn, Macron, whatever) to save them from the hell-hole of forgottenness ... it's the trailer trash who are hurting and who will (have) eventually lead the revolution

No matter how many times this is debunked, the zombie lie keeps shambling forward. By any reasonable definition of the term, "the underclass" voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Voters earning less than $30,000/year split 53%/40% Clinton/Trump. The next highest grouping, $30,000/year to $50,000/year, split 53%/40% Clinton/Trump. Of course, when this kind of talking point rises from the grave yet again what's being referred to as "the underclass" actually means "the white underclass". (In American politics, the "white" is silent.) So yes, if you see "the underclass" in America as an exclusively white demographic, Donald Trump did surprisingly well with "the underclass" compared to Mitt Romney's 2012 performance, though he lost ground (again, relative to Romney) among the [white] middle class. The exact reason why the white underclass is the only demographic that's worthy of political attention is usually left unsaid.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Further up-thread, Mr. Cheesy linked to a recent Radiolab podcast that looked into the ability of a person down the line of the nuclear chain of command to say "no." Specifically, as the stress of Watergate began to really get to Nixon, there were reports that he was drinking too much. One of the officers at a missile base, who would have had to turn one of the two keys if Nixon ordered a strike, asked his superior how he would know that the order was coming from a sober, sane President.

The questioning offer got his ass canned for even asking. [Ultra confused]

From a bit further up the chain of command Defense Secretary James Schlesinger issued a directive to the military not to follow any "unusual orders" originating in the White House unless those orders were relayed by him personally. Schlesinger was (reputedly) more worried about Nixon staging a military coup than launching a bunch of nukes, but the general effect is the same.

[ 19. May 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

By the bye, I am (was?) a Republican. My party has deserted me...

Indeed. As a left-wing pro-life evangelical, I've got some awareness of what it's like when your tribe veers wildly off track. My sympathy.
This is a problem in a two party system, it is very easy for neither to represent a country very well. Given the polarisation of both American parties, this appears to be more and more true.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The exact reason why the white underclass is the only demographic that's worthy of political attention is usually left unsaid.

As the white goes silent in white people, the people in black people goes ignored.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Remember, from Australia's perspective America's health system continues to be a very bad joke under Obamacare. One thought I had the other day: Are all American hospitals private? Or, to ask in another way, Are there hospitals that are fully run and paid for by one or more Govt entities in America? If not, you guys are so screwed.

Veteran's Administration hospitals are run and paid for by the U.S. government but, as the name implies, they are only for the use of military veterans.

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Neither Ford nor George HW Bush were tainted by the White House scandals during their terms as VP. I thing George had a weak bladder or something.

It's amazing how completely Iran-Contra has fallen down the memory hole, including Bush Senior's suspicious pardon of 6 high-level conspirators on his way out the White House door.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
By the bye, I am (was?) a Republican. My party has deserted me...

Indeed. As a left-wing pro-life evangelical, I've got some awareness of what it's like when your tribe veers wildly off track. My sympathy.
This is a problem in a two party system, it is very easy for neither to represent a country very well. Given the polarisation of both American parties, this appears to be more and more true.
The two party system is a logical outgrowth of the U.S. winner-take-all majoritarian constitutional system. Traditionally the political parties try to appeal to enough factions to get a working majority, but not so many factions that they're stymied by trying to fulfill contradictory demands. In a lot of ways American major political parties are like coalition governments in a parliamentary system, except that the coalitions are formed before the election rather than after.

While the American constitutional system is geared towards the existence of exactly and only two major political parties they don't necessarily have to be the same configuration of interest groups we see today. Some groups have interests so contradictory they can't comfortably exist in the same party (e.g. religious conservatives and gay rights advocates). In other cases the current alignment is largely due to historical contingency (e.g. there's no particular reason for religious conservatives to ally themselves politically with big business instead of labor interests).

What's interesting is that what we're seeing now is the transformation of one of the major American political parties (the Republicans) into something that more closely resembles the kind of ideologically coherent party you see more often in parliamentary systems. Despite claims about "the polarisation of both American parties" the Democrats still seem to be more of a coalition of different interests than an ideologically coherent party.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No matter how many times this is debunked, the zombie lie keeps shambling forward. By any reasonable definition of the term, "the underclass" voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Voters earning less than $30,000/year split 53%/40% Clinton/Trump. The next highest grouping, $30,000/year to $50,000/year, split 53%/40% Clinton/Trump. Of course, when this kind of talking point rises from the grave yet again what's being referred to as "the underclass" actually means "the white underclass". (In American politics, the "white" is silent.) So yes, if you see "the underclass" in America as an exclusively white demographic, Donald Trump did surprisingly well with "the underclass" compared to Mitt Romney's 2012 performance, though he lost ground (again, relative to Romney) among the [white] middle class. The exact reason why the white underclass is the only demographic that's worthy of political attention is usually left unsaid.

Same is true, btw, of the evangelical vote. Reports of the high percentage of Trump voters among evangelicals are always citing figures of white evangelicals, even though non-whites are a very large subset of evangelicals. The vast majority of non-white evangelicals, not surprisingly, did not vote for Trump. Evangelicals of all ethnicities are rarely surveyed, which, as you suggest, is an interesting dynamic in and of itself.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
When asked if he asked Comey to slow down or end the Russian investigation, Trump said "No. No. Next question." He is putting his whole presidency on those four words.

Love to hear the tapes.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

While the American constitutional system is geared towards the existence of exactly and only two major political parties they don't necessarily have to be the same configuration of interest groups we see today.

ISTM, if America had other parties that were taken with some semblance of seriousness, it would be better for the country. The last time a third party candidate had a serious chance was Perot, yes? Before that Teddy Roosevelt?
Though the system is set up for two parties in power at any one time, if there were a greater number of substantial parties, I think the system would work better for the people. It could be more representative.
As to the Democrats being less polarised that the Republicans, I'll give you that they are less so, but not that they are truly inclusive. Could a Pro-Life Democrat become president? More open it might be, but the door is still guarded.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Apparently, the Potus thinks Mr. Comey is a 'nut job'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39983257

Takes one to know one, I guess.

IJ
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The last time a third party candidate had a serious chance was Perot, yes?

Perot wasn't a third party candidate. He didn't have a party - unless you think that "Ross Perot" counts as a party. His "Reform Party" has a handful of local elected officials associated with it over the whole country. It's a non-entity.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The last time a third party candidate had a serious chance was Perot, yes?

Perot wasn't a third party candidate. He didn't have a party - unless you think that "Ross Perot" counts as a party. His "Reform Party" has a handful of local elected officials associated with it over the whole country. It's a non-entity.
According to the wikipedia article for the 1996 election, he ran under the Reform banner that year. However, due to state laws, he had to run as an independent in many states.

[ 19. May 2017, 19:44: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Apparently, the Potus thinks Mr. Comey is a 'nut job'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39983257

Takes one to know one, I guess.

IJ

What are the thoughts on these leaks? Are they unprecedented? Potentially coming from the disaffected within the White House? Cannot think of any other reason.

Certainly makes me go [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
According to the wikipedia article for the 1996 election, he ran under the Reform banner that year. However, due to state laws, he had to run as an independent in many states.

And "Reform" is a party created by Ross Perot for the purposes of furthering the ideas of Ross Perot.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While the American constitutional system is geared towards the existence of exactly and only two major political parties they don't necessarily have to be the same configuration of interest groups we see today.

ISTM, if America had other parties that were taken with some semblance of seriousness, it would be better for the country. The last time a third party candidate had a serious chance was Perot, yes? Before that Teddy Roosevelt?
Though the system is set up for two parties in power at any one time, if there were a greater number of substantial parties, I think the system would work better for the people. It could be more representative.

Roosevelt's run on the Progressive ticket is an illustration of why this kind of 'electoral politics as a personalized consumer good' approach is self-destructive in the American political system. The net effect of former Republican Roosevelt running against Republican incumbent Taft was splitting the previously-Republican vote, allowing Woodrow Wilson to be only the second* Democrat elected to the presidency since the end of the Civil War.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "better". If you're looking for a political system that would give you personal validation that your political preferences are being catered to, albeit in an ineffective way, then sure, the Left-Handed Vegans in favor of Nuking Canada Party is a great idea. On the other hand, if you want a political system that actually gets things done, it's a terrible idea. American political parties are (or "were", in the case of the Republicans) coalitions of disparate, hopefully non-conflicting, interests that would support each other's agendas. Those wanting to raise the federal minimum wage, people wanting to legalize same-sex marriage, and people who favor tougher pollution controls may not individually constitute a majority (the threshold to get anything done in American politics), but could be a majority by joining forces.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As to the Democrats being less polarised that the Republicans, I'll give you that they are less so, but not that they are truly inclusive. Could a Pro-Life Democrat become president? More open it might be, but the door is still guarded.

If a pro-life Democrat can become the Senate Majority/Minority Leader I'd say it's a least a possibility. On the other hand, political parties aren't supposed to be "inclusive" in the "anything goes" sense of the term. They exist to promote certain political agendas and, as such, there are certain things they're going to be for and other things they're going to be against. That said, the Democrats still fit into the "coalition of various interests" type of political party that's been more common throughout American history, whereas I'm not sure the same can be said about the present-day Republican party.


--------------------
*Third, if you count Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive wins to be two different presidencies.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though the system is set up for two parties in power at any one time, if there were a greater number of substantial parties, I think the system would work better for the people. It could be more representative.

That would work if you change the voting system so that it's no longer first past the post. I can't see it working otherwise if the parties are organised along a left-right political spectrum. If you arrange the parties so that each has roughly equal support and each is equally likely to lose votes to both of the others then maybe you could call the results representative. But I think that's unlikely.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If a pro-life Democrat can become the Senate Majority/Minority Leader I'd say it's a least a possibility. On the other hand, political parties aren't supposed to be "inclusive" in the "anything goes" sense of the term. They exist to promote certain political agendas and, as such, there are certain things they're going to be for and other things they're going to be against. That said, the Democrats still fit into the "coalition of various interests" type of political party that's been more common throughout American history, whereas I'm not sure the same can be said about the present-day Republican party.

Given that even St. Reagan would be barred from the Grand Old Party...
Still, America needs something...more.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

By the bye, I am (was?) a Republican. My party has deserted me...

Indeed. As a left-wing pro-life evangelical, I've got some awareness of what it's like when your tribe veers wildly off track. My sympathy.
This states a problem with USA politics as seen by a Canadian outsider. Pro-life cannot be enough to cause party adherence and voting. But holy fuck it is! One issue is not enough. You cannot separate that issue from health care, prisons, private versus public ownership of public and social services. There's a loss of civil society when things are polarised around a single issue. About which the press on Pence indicates he is as poisonous as trumpy. Have you seen laws he signed when a govenor? Toxic.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
From a behind-a-paywall article:

quote:
Added to Trump’s troubles is a White House believed to be melting down in conflict and incompetence, an executive in which thousands of positions remain unfilled, and a President so bored with the job that his staff are inserting his name into documents, in order to keep him reading.
I take it the 1000s is hyperbole...or is it? And is it usual for a number of positions to go unfilled 100+ days in?
I may have missed it, but where did this article come from?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, if America had other parties that were taken with some semblance of seriousness, it would be better for the country. The last time a third party candidate had a serious chance was Perot, yes? Before that Teddy Roosevelt?

Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000 -- quite possibly why we got stuck with George W. Bush. (Well, that and the Supreme Court...)
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When asked if he asked Comey to slow down or end the Russian investigation, Trump said "No. No. Next question." He is putting his whole presidency on those four words.

Love to hear the tapes.

"Expletive(s) deleted"
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, if America had other parties that were taken with some semblance of seriousness, it would be better for the country. The last time a third party candidate had a serious chance was Perot, yes? Before that Teddy Roosevelt?

Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000 -- quite possibly why we got stuck with George W. Bush. (Well, that and the Supreme Court...)
And Al Gore's inability to win his home state.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
From a behind-a-paywall article:

quote:
Added to Trump’s troubles is a White House believed to be melting down in conflict and incompetence, an executive in which thousands of positions remain unfilled, and a President so bored with the job that his staff are inserting his name into documents, in order to keep him reading.
I take it the 1000s is hyperbole...or is it? And is it usual for a number of positions to go unfilled 100+ days in?
I may have missed it, but where did this article come from?
It is from a left-leaning online news source where articles are usually behind a paywall. Hence me not linking to it. But I find this article is not, so here it is.

They do indulge in hyperbole, and the 1000s seems to me to be that, but I was curious how many positions remain unfilled. And, if it be a large number, is that usual.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
From a behind-a-paywall article:

quote:
Added to Trump’s troubles is a White House believed to be melting down in conflict and incompetence, an executive in which thousands of positions remain unfilled, and a President so bored with the job that his staff are inserting his name into documents, in order to keep him reading.
I take it the 1000s is hyperbole...or is it? And is it usual for a number of positions to go unfilled 100+ days in?
Not hyperbole.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
One of the reasons why public funding (US$7m) is supplied to presidential transition teams is so that the appointee selection process is well along by inauguration day. Folk outside the US are often surprised by the depth of levels of political appointments in the US bureaucracy-- even down to the (Canadian) director-general or (UK) director level.

In my former RL I got to sit at a Vancouver lunch alongside a visiting Assistant Deputy Associate Secretary for something or the other at the US Department of Education who, it turned out, was appointed by the Clinton administration for his skill with fundraising in the Vietnamese Californian community. His conversation, while witty and very intelligent, was entirely directed at fundraising to the point that the rest of the table, public servants to a person, felt that they could say nothing whatsoever with propriety, and the (Canadian) ministerial assistant knew nothing of fundraising, as such things are dealt with by party staff, not ministerial staff.

When I learned that so few Trump appointments have been made at this point, I was astonished, and am really wondering how on earth they believe that they can function. The US system is built around political direction at this level and, when they don't have it, the Trump administration will not be able to effect longlasting regulatory or administrative change.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
And now it's been reported that Trump told the Russians that Comey was a "nut job" and that firing him would ease the pressure caused by the Russian investigation.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Nut job calls nut job a nut job. If we put them in a swamp and they float, can we burn them?
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
When I read that diagnosis of Comey, my first reaction was, I wonder how Lavrov suppressed a chuckle.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re T being bored, bewildered staff, etc.:

This is an amalgam of various news items, both pre- and post-election.

--T never wanted to be president, per friend and shock-jock Howard Stern. (Interesting pairing. Stern even said T "just wants to be loved, like everyone else".) He just wanted to be paid more for his "Apprentice" reality-show work. He wanted Hillary to win. He didn't think he had a chance.

--During the campaign, both T and his then campaign manager said that T didn't want to do the work of being president, and would delegate everything.

--IIRC, both T and Obama said that T didn't understand how much the president has to do.

--I recently heard/read an anonymous quote from someone in the administration, to the effect that they (as a group) had thought that it would be easy, and that all the rules and protocol were just silly--and were surprised to find out they were wrong.

....so we've got a dangerously incompetent president, who never wanted the job; some staff who didn't have the sense to think it would be work, and others who are trying to appease T and get him focused on the job; and a whole lot of nepotism.


Lovely.
[brick wall] [Help] [Projectile]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
This is why I'm having such a hard time not saying "I told you so" [Razz] to certain people IRL, or even here. Y'all are way too generous, you who keep attributing his actions to some deep-seated cunning plan which will make something (anything, at least one thing?) explainable. What if what you see is all there is? No plans, just petulance; no policies, just pouting; no deep or even shallowly laid plots, just "open mouth and see what comes out."

And of course tons of reactivity. The temptation is to start deliberately trailing stimuli in front of him to make him jump all over the map, like a cat with a laser pointer. It's a good thing I can feel God giving me the hairy eyeball at the moment--the temptation, (rubs hands together,) I feeeeeeeel the temptation....
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
My wife read out to me a David Brookes opinion piece in the NY Times, where he referred to the President's brain as two or three fireflies rattling around in a jar.

In Australia, where the media pack is tiny and the political reporters see each other every day, live in the same area and every now and then get pissed together and screw each other, groupthink can be a problem. People see the event, and react the same way because they all think along similar tracks.

We have a weekly show called Media Watch, where the host and his staff research and point out where how and why the various news outlets make mistakes. The Media hate them, especially the right-wingers, who are usually shockers at things like fairness and accuracy.

Anyway, I'm just a bit suss about the media at the moment in America. They don't seem to be leading us astray, but I don't trust the bastards. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

You might check out

--"On The Media" radio show (with some attitude [Smile] ),

--
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR),

--and "Democracy Now" TV/radio show.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{Wistful thought.}

Trump privately decides to resign, fires Pence, and nominates Hillary for VP. Congress approves, if only in order to move on.

Blissful thought.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{Wistful thought.}

Trump privately decides to resign, fires Pence, and nominates Hillary for VP. Congress approves, if only in order to move on.

Blissful thought.

Not sure if that's an appropriate procedure - perhaps an Usanian can advise - but the wistful thought would surely be Elizabeth Warren.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The papers today are full of "How will Trump cope abroad?" questions.

He's not going backpacking for goodness sake!

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Media Watch Story on Brick X

I'm not sure that people in America will be able to see the link. It's a story by Media Watch on a new type of property investment, Brick X. It shows excerpts from two commercial network stories about the scheme, and a third from the public broadcaster (also the network on which Media Watch appears). The Public Broadcaster's show has the very highest reputation for integrity. Media Watch points out that all three segments fail to offer a critique of Brick X's scheme, and fail to interview anyone not associated with the company.

What the show does is take a preconceived idea of what good journalism is and then critiques stories from media across Australia and across the spectrum. It's not a political idea, at least its only political to the extent that it regards a free and fair media, free of both commercial and ideological constraints, as the standard. It's the sort of show that I imagine might fit on PBS or NPR - or at least my perception of those organisations.

Anyway, I hope the yanks can see the story.

Edit: Brick X is a rubbish idea. Don't invest.

[ 20. May 2017, 08:32: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Gee D--

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{Wistful thought.}

Trump privately decides to resign, fires Pence, and nominates Hillary for VP. Congress approves, if only in order to move on.

Blissful thought.

Not sure if that's an appropriate procedure - perhaps an Usanian can advise - but the wistful thought would surely be Elizabeth Warren.
I'm in the USA. [Smile] I doubt it would be allowed. But it's the one way I can see to put the big things right, without too much fuss. Pence is fired; Hillary becomes VP; T resigns, to his own relief; and Hillary becomes president.

And no, not Elizabeth Warren. Her best place is in Congress, where she can do the most good.

My wistful thought is for *Hillary*, because I voted for her, and she won the popular vote. We had an election between the least qualified candidate, ever, and the most qualified candidate, ever. The wrong person wound up in office, partly due to meddling by another country, which IMHO should invalidate the entire Republican campaign.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Never mind the bollocks, what does he need to have done to have obstructed justice?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Boogie--

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The papers today are full of "How will Trump cope abroad?" questions.

He's not going backpacking for goodness sake!

[Roll Eyes]

It's a legitimate concern. Pre-presidency, he constructed his own little world: he could go from Trump Tower to any of his other resorts, golf courses, hotels, etc. He didn't have to spend a whole lot of time in the outside world, and he's rich enough that he can have things brought to him. He's tried to keep that up, now he's president, with hanging out at Mar-a-Lago and other places. He has to have everything in gold, even his toilet seat at Trump Tower. He redid the Oval Office in gold, and there was talk of possibly redoing the bathroom in the family residence. He always has to be at the center of everything. That's the only way he can function, even to the minor extent that he currently functions.

He also thinks that the Middle East peace problem is probably a lot easier to solve than people think. He's going to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Vatican, in that order. As much as that all needs to be settled, I really hope that the parties needing to make peace don't get together and say, "Sh*t. We better at least publicly make peace, before that idiot gets bored or frustrated, and blows us all up!" Because that would just reinforce T's view of himself. And we'd never be able to impeach him.

I'm not sure what he's doing in SA. But he's scheduled for many things in Israel, including the Holocaust Museum. (Think of all the wrong things he could say/do there.) He's going to the Wailing Wall with the chief rabbi, but has refused to let Netanyahu go along. (Not sure if that's good or bad.) And someone suggested the Pope might have a few things to impress upon him.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

"Media Watch" sounds like the "On The Media" show I mentioned above. OTM and Democracy Now (also on my list) are both on public broadcasting. (OTM on the radio, and DN on both TV and radio.) FAIR also is referenced in public broadcasting. Not sure if it has its own show.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{Wistful thought.}

Trump privately decides to resign, fires Pence, and nominates Hillary for VP. Congress approves, if only in order to move on.

Blissful thought.

Not sure if that's an appropriate procedure - perhaps an Usanian can advise - but the wistful thought would surely be Elizabeth Warren.
In the frozen north, we are regularly bombarded with the details of the US Constitution. There is no provision for the President to fire the Vice President. The only forced-exit mode for Pence is for him to be impeached, as provided for in Article 2, where the VP is named as one of the officers who can be thereby removed.

Even if Pence resigned/was impeached/took monastic vows, succession procedures provide that the Speaker of the House is next in line until the president's nominee for the VPship is approved by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. I do not see either Mrs Clinton of Ms Warren being approved by either house, let alone both but the past year has proven that it is most unwise to predict anything anymore.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Joe Lieberman? [Razz]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Lieberman has been mentioned, in the news, as a possible FBI director--except he has no relevant experience.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
To be frank, I don't think anyone wants to be FBI director if the president, no matter who it is, can fire him/her on a whim. Congress will need to make the FBI independent before possible directors would be comfortable with the job.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O deep joy. From BBC News:

The US has signed its largest ever arms deal with Saudi Arabia as US President Donald Trump's first foreign trip begins in Riyadh.

The deal is apparently worth $110 billion (give or take a few).

Why does this depress me even further? Why is it so hot in here? What am I doing in this handbasket?

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Quote of the day from the Guardian -

"If only there'd been some way to predict that electing a draft-dodging, scam university running, pussy-grabbing, semi-literate, self-obsessed, midnight tweeting, multiple-bankrupt property developer who refused release his tax returns or detail his business interests would lead to a compromised and unstable administration."
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
[Tear]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Lieberman has been mentioned, in the news, as a possible FBI director--except he has no relevant experience.

Then again 45 has no relevant experience to be president. De Vos has no relevant experience qualifying her to walk down the sidewalk in front of a school, let alone be Ed Secy. Etc.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{Wistful thought.}

Trump privately decides to resign, fires Pence, and nominates Hillary for VP. Congress approves, if only in order to move on.

Blissful thought.

A more feasible plan would be the impeachment/investigation is stalled for 2 years, Hillary runs for & wins a seat in the house, Dems flip the house, Hillary is elected Speaker. THEN Trump & Pence are impeached in close & quick enough succession to avoid either appointing a new VP.

But again this is
[Axe murder] thinking.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And someone suggested the Pope might have a few things to impress upon him.

I know the Pope is not divine, but I'm wondering if his holiness might trigger a Uzzah moment for Trump...
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Sweet Jesus, Mother Mary help us, what if Trump manages to insult all three major religions in the Holy Land?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O deep joy. From BBC News:

The US has signed its largest ever arms deal with Saudi Arabia as US President Donald Trump's first foreign trip begins in Riyadh.

(snip)

Why does this depress me even further? [Help]

IJ

That's actually a good question, since it pretty much just represents business-as-usual between the Saudi kingdom and its western pals. Your proverbial handbasket has been hovering about in this general vicintiy for at least 100 years.

[ 20. May 2017, 16:36: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Sweet Jesus, Mother Mary help us, what if Trump manages to insult all three major religions in the Holy Land?
He probably will. [Paranoid]

[ 20. May 2017, 16:37: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Also I would be surprised if this was a new deal, as opposed to one that's been in progress since before Mr Trump got in.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Sweet Jesus, Mother Mary help us, what if Trump manages to insult all three major religions in the Holy Land?

"If"??? The office pool is about when.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Sweet Jesus, Mother Mary help us, what if Trump manages to insult all three major religions in the Holy Land?
He probably will. [Paranoid]
Maybe at Yad Vashem, when he hears the stories about the righteous Gentiles who sheltered and protected many Jews from the concentration camps, the Ground of Our Being, will break through that stone heart of his, and he might rethink his refugee policies.

Or maybe, we can just ask that he doesn't say anything stupid at the Holocaust museum.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And someone suggested the Pope might have a few things to impress upon him.

I know the Pope is not divine, but I'm wondering if his holiness might trigger a Uzzah moment for Trump...
Or reactivate the Inquisition and have him led off in a hood to parts unknown.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And someone suggested the Pope might have a few things to impress upon him.

I know the Pope is not divine, but I'm wondering if his holiness might trigger a Uzzah moment for Trump...
Or reactivate the Inquisition and have him led off in a hood to parts unknown.
Apparently, that is not his style.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And someone suggested the Pope might have a few things to impress upon him.

I know the Pope is not divine, but I'm wondering if his holiness might trigger a Uzzah moment for Trump...
Or reactivate the Inquisition and have him led off in a hood to parts unknown.
Well nobody expects that!
[Razz]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also I would be surprised if this [the Saudi arms sale] was a new deal

Heh. Interesting choice of words.

[ 20. May 2017, 18:58: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Maybe at Yad Vashem, when he hears the stories about the righteous Gentiles who sheltered and protected many Jews from the concentration camps, the Ground of Our Being, will break through that stone heart of his, and he might rethink his refugee policies.

Or maybe, we can just ask that he doesn't say anything stupid at the Holocaust museum.

My guess: he starts rambling on about how he's more righteous and has saved more Jews than anyone else.

And in today's Trump Scandal Update, two points:



quote:
Within hours of Mueller's appointment on Wednesday, the White House began reviewing the Code of Federal Regulations, which restricts newly hired government lawyers from investigating their prior law firm’s clients for one year after their hiring, the sources said.

An executive order signed by Trump in January extended that period to two years.

Mueller's former law firm, WilmerHale, represents Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who met with a Russian bank executive in December, and the president's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who is a subject of a federal investigation.

Legal experts said the ethics rule can be waived by the Justice Department, which appointed Mueller. He did not represent Kushner or Manafort directly at his former law firm.

There are just so many amazing coincidences happening at the White House lately!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Horror fear: he makes some comparison to Hitler while in Israel.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Which might provoke Mossad.....

IJ
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Horror fear: he makes some comparison to Hitler while in Israel.

"Hitler was a great man! Great! He knew the Holocaust would create sympathy for the Jewish people and motivate the creation of an independent Jewish State. We should all thank him!""
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
'Bigly! He was a YUGE success!'

(And he had a rotten barber, too).

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Sweet Jesus, Mother Mary help us, what if Trump manages to insult all three major religions in the Holy Land?

They might finally admit they have things in common, and get their heads on straight?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
cliffdweller--

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And someone suggested the Pope might have a few things to impress upon him.

I know the Pope is not divine, but I'm wondering if his holiness might trigger a Uzzah moment for Trump...
Well, that would require a charged-up Ark of the Covenant. And touching it was only dangerous for Jews.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Horror fear: he makes some comparison to Hitler while in Israel.

"Hitler was a great man! Great! He knew the Holocaust would create sympathy for the Jewish people and motivate the creation of an independent Jewish State. We should all thank him!""
T: "And if I'd been Hitler, no Jews would've died--well, very few, it would be sad, but you've got to have some order. No, I would've just asked them to soonly move along to another country. They'd be happier, Europe would be happier, I'd be happier, win-win all around. Hey, they could go to America and set up bagel shops!" {Big grin on T's face.}
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I hope he doesn’t mention how Hitler didn’t sink to using chemical weapons, and how Jews were taken to “holocaust centers.”
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'm trying to remember...didn't someone endeavor to teach T something, after one of his gaffes? Maybe took him to the Holocaust Museum in DC, after the remarks you quoted. IIRC, he said afterward that he had earned something.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Totally coincidentally, the White House is examining ethics rules which would prohibit Special Counsel Mueller from investigating Kushner (and Manafort, so it's a twofer). ...

Croesus, what's a 'twofer' please?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Totally coincidentally, the White House is examining ethics rules which would prohibit Special Counsel Mueller from investigating Kushner (and Manafort, so it's a twofer). ...

Croesus, what's a 'twofer' please?
Two for one.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
It's Sunday-- a day when we celebrate the resurrection, a day for hope in the midst of darkness. Ultimately, our hope is in Christ and today I'll remember that.

But for those of us not quite ready to give up on this world, I offer this more moral hope: remembering the back story of our two former FBI directors

Mr. Cliffdweller & I decided on Tom Hanks & Liam Neesen to play Comey and Mueller in the upcoming spy thriller. Melissa McCarthy plays comic relief Spicer, hiding among the bushes, rushing to and from press briefings muttering "I hate my life I hate my life I hate my life..."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Franklin Graham on his support for Donald Trump. He believes that Lyin' Don is God's perfect choice.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Because God loves lying predators
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
When I was in Israel in 2006, I was alarmed and amused by how much of the place had donation plaques on it. We have plaques on seats in our concert hall, but usually places and plaques are named in honor of people, not because they paid for it. An exception is the Murdoch family, who splash their name all over the place.

Anyway, I needed to go to the toilet at Yad Vashem and was alarmed and exceedingly amused to see that the toilet cubicles each bore a plaque.

These days, now that I am wise, I wonder whether having your name there is something of a cry of victory over death, or indeed a memorial to the dead, and that the toilets at Yad Vashem are indeed suitable places for memory.

My instinctive reaction to plaques and naming is that they are shameful boasts.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Franklin Graham on his support for Donald Trump. He believes that Lyin' Don is God's perfect choice.

If and when Franklin Graham moves into the house next door in heaven, I will realize I was actually sent to hell.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
When I was in Israel in 2006, I was alarmed and amused by how much of the place had donation plaques on it. We have plaques on seats in our concert hall, but usually places and plaques are named in honor of people, not because they paid for it.

I've seen several examples of the memorial brick phenomenon in this country. Personally I wouldn't want someone stepping on my name.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Franklin Graham on his support for Donald Trump. He believes that Lyin' Don is God's perfect choice.

Now, he said, there’s "no question" that God is supporting Trump, Graham said.

I thought we were over the "God on my side, the Devil on theirs" statements...seemingly not. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Franklin Graham on his support for Donald Trump. He believes that Lyin' Don is God's perfect choice.

Now, he said, there’s "no question" that God is supporting Trump, Graham said.

I thought we were over the "God on my side, the Devil on theirs" statements...seemingly not. [Disappointed]

Like he supported Sennacherib??

[wow spell checker had it]
We had the "God's got a plan"* brexiteers (which I believe the predicate, but see no connection to the conclusion. And also aware one plan involved learning our lesson for 40 years.

*there was also another bit better thought out variant, although it was still a bit selectively planned.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Franklin Graham on his support for Donald Trump. He believes that Lyin' Don is God's perfect choice.

As Zappa outlined, it is an example of His mercy and forgiveness. Twice over.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As Zappa outlined, it is an example of His mercy and forgiveness. Twice over.

I think among the true believers the thinking has moved from 'He's a baby Christian' to 'He is an imperfect vessel, but like Cyrus is chosen by God'
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As Zappa outlined, it is an example of His mercy and forgiveness. Twice over.

I think among the true believers the thinking has moved from 'He's a baby Christian' to 'He is an imperfect vessel, but like Cyrus is chosen by God'
I liked Cyrus. IIRC, he was much more humble, knew that he didn't know much, and was willing to learn. Qualifications that T doesn't seem to have. And my guess is Cyrus was much more functional.

And, frankly, that kind of "chosen by God" assertion is wayyy too much to put on a "baby Christian". IMNSHO, they're using him.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Between "he's a baby Christian" (hello? the man's 70 years old, what's he been at the past seven decades?) and "he's a flawed vessel" you have all the mealy-mouthed excuses you need to just drop the reins and let him gallop off into whatever lunacy you like.
This is not Christian witness. The salt has lost its savor, and is fit only to be tossed out. [Projectile]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As Zappa outlined, it is an example of His mercy and forgiveness. Twice over.

I think among the true believers the thinking has moved from 'He's a baby Christian' to 'He is an imperfect vessel, but like Cyrus is chosen by God'
If I were inclined to that sort of Calvinist fatalism, I would definitely see him more Nebuchadnezzar. Which means the unfairly maligned Rev. Wright was correct: God has judged America, and 45 is the divine retribution.

[ 22. May 2017, 14:58: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I fear that he is rather the judgment upon the Church. We, along with the GOP, are in line to lose an entire generation. People like Graham will ensure that people look at a church and see a loathsome orange politician.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
More evangelical explanations. The ever-repulsive Jim Bakker says that this is the beginning of the Apocalypse, because God's miracle was Lyin' Don's election. But the best one is the guy saying that women marchers are witches. I probably should do him a pussyhat.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But what would less nutty Christians say about Trump? I notice the phrase 'the judgment upon the Church', but would that also mean a judgment upon the US? That's also a bit nutty, isn't it?

I suppose there is a neutral position, that God has not been involved. Is that kosher?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Not sure how well-thought out this is, probably not very, but I tend to take the view everything happens with God's implicit 'okay' but it does not necessarily mean it's His will or sign of favour.

Does God care if Football Team A beats Football Team B? Are A more pious, more worthy of favour?

Switching countries, if both major parties delight in telling us they will continue to lock up refugees on remote Pacific isles, I can't imagine God is too impressed with either one of them (and for some reason won't set Parliament House alight with lightning). Yet they continue to get in...

As I said, possibly half-formed. And possibly problematic. I tend to see poor political leaders as a judgement on us than them; we (in the general sense) elected them, or we (society) allowed the conditions to exist where they were elected.

[ 22. May 2017, 21:02: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Sorry, to clear up my last paragraph.

Has society failed Trump voters through lack of education, employment, security, etc? That is my charitable view.

But the less charitable view, which I can't escape from given T's comments and actions before the election, is that there are some racists and sexists, perhaps many, who voted for him. So perhaps my looking at a judgement on us was wrong now I ponder.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Sure, politicians are judgement upon us. Also AIDS / HIV, drones strikes killing the wrong people, nipples on men, mosquitos, the dog eating your homework, rapes, murders and bed bugs. trumpy might be many things, but he's no tool of God. Neither was Charles Manson nor Jack the Ripper. For a tool of God, maybe you want Pence, that Qtip headed cherry lipped vacant staring crackpot. [Help]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Ah...good points. Did not think through the consequences.

[Though I still remain pissed people are dying of treatable diseases...perhaps judgement falls on the drug companies...]

How is quetzalcoatl's interesting, to me, question answered, then? Do things happen without God's implicit/explicit okay? How far can you take it? If this is suited to a new thread let me know.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
OK, Saudi (Gulf odds and sods, Turkey) Sonny, good, Iran (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen) Cher, bad. How? Both back insurrections bringing down slaughter. So Christians should back the good, right?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

Personally, I'd prefer the "where is God when bad things happen, and does God send them" discussion spun off into another thread. IMHO, it's getting in the way here. And, based on past theodicy threads, the discussion would likely be both wide-reaching and intense.

FWIW.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
More evangelical explanations. The ever-repulsive Jim Bakker says that this is the beginning of the Apocalypse, because God's miracle was Lyin' Don's election.

I'm wondering if Rev. Jim is right, just not in the way he thinks. I've wondered that ever since I preached the Sunday before the election, and the lectionary handed me this:

quote:
2Th. 2:1-4, 11: Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

...For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But the best one is the guy saying that women marchers are witches. I probably should do him a pussyhat.

Please please please!!! [Axe murder]

[ 22. May 2017, 23:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But what would less nutty Christians say about Trump? I notice the phrase 'the judgment upon the Church', but would that also mean a judgment upon the US? That's also a bit nutty, isn't it?

I suppose there is a neutral position, that God has not been involved. Is that kosher?

There's a fourth (fifth? I dunno) position which holds that yes, Trump is a judgement on us, in exactly the same way that failing an exam is a judgement on the student who refused to study.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
For a tool of God, maybe you want Pence, that Qtip headed cherry lipped vacant staring crackpot. [Help]

He's a tool all right. But a tool of God? Maybe in the sense in which Nebuchadnezzar was a tool of God.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm wondering if Rev. Jim is right, just not in the way he thinks. I've wondered that ever since I preached the Sunday before the election, and the lectionary handed me this:

quote:
2Th. 2:1-4, 11: Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

...For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie


As discussed at length on the Rapture thread, I incline to the "eschatology as a series of contractions" theory in which much like the contractions of childbirth, the same signs recur throughout history many times before actually producing the eschaton.

On this reading I think Trump certainly fits the bill as a man of lawlessness: an example of a type.

(On further reflection, though, Brenda's pussyhats might go some way to explaining all those references to strange many-horned beasts...)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
For a tool of God, maybe you want Pence, that Qtip headed cherry lipped vacant staring crackpot. [Help]

He's a tool all right. But a tool of God? Maybe in the sense in which Nebuchadnezzar was a tool of God.
Does that mean that God is going to play graffiti artist again, and write on the wall? Will She be arrested?

(Hope I'm remembering the right story!)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It was Belshazzar who got the graffiti, but your point still stands!

Mind you, I thought Pussygrabber had already been weighed in the balance, and found wanting.

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
BF--

Thanks for correcting which story. [Smile]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
My pleasure.

For a rousing musical depiction of the story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7eiwPxV-D4

BTW, Willard White would make an imposing President, only he's British...

IJ
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Someone, Pyx_e I think, once used as a tagline:
We are all tools in the hand of God: SOme of us are bigger tools than others.

Somehow that seemed to me to be to the point.

JOhn
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
For a rousing musical depiction of the story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7eiwPxV-D4

As opposed to the story of Nebuchadnezzar?
[Smile]

[ 23. May 2017, 16:30: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Killing me]

Thanks for that....

Or, as my mother once told me (I know not why);

'Nebuchadnezzar, the King of the Jews, (?)
Sold his wife for a pair of shoes.
When the shoes began to wear,
Nebuchadnezzar began to swear.'

I'll get me coat.

IJ
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
[Killing me]

Thanks for that....

Or, as my mother once told me (I know not why);

'Nebuchadnezzar, the King of the Jews, (?)
Sold his wife for a pair of shoes.
When the shoes began to wear,
Nebuchadnezzar began to swear.'

I'll get me coat.

IJ

I heard the exact same poem from my father. (Born and raised in western Canada, but his parents had both immigrated from Scotland as children.)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, there's True Culture for you - transcends all boundaries!

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
For a man who tried a Muslim ban, he had no problem selling them $110 billion of weapons to an extremist Islamic country (Saudi Arabia). What could possibly go wrong as Saudi and Iran continue their proxy war in Yemen? Though this isn't just trumpy. It is a continuation of historical, many decades long American policy in the region. Soaked in blood. Creating more hatred for coming decades which makes for even more anti-Americanism. Does anyone understand why an educated Saudi living abroad might consider terror against America now? How about Iran, which has a progressive leadership and a very young population. Now both sides will hate America more. I'd weep if I had any more tears left after Manchester.

But no-one cares about geography and geopolitical problems, and this war weapons deal will make America great again by providing good jobs. Disgracefull.

[ 24. May 2017, 00:57: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
For a man who tried a Muslim ban, he had no problem selling them $110 billion of weapons to an extremist Islamic country (Saudi Arabia). What could possibly go wrong as Saudi and Iran continue their proxy war in Yemen? Though this isn't just trumpy. It is a continuation of historical, many decades long American policy in the region. Soaked in blood. Creating more hatred for coming decades which makes for even more anti-Americanism. Does anyone understand why an educated Saudi living abroad might consider terror against America now? How about Iran, which has a progressive leadership and a very young population. Now both sides will hate America more. I'd weep if I had any more tears left after Manchester.

But no-one cares about geography and geopolitical problems, and this war weapons deal will make America great again by providing good jobs. Disgracefull.

This [Tear]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Trump reckons that Belgium is a beautiful city. One step up from the 'hell hole' he previously called it?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A good (and free click) analysis of how Drump thinks of the world.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Oops again, even though it is the worst kept secret you never admit that there are two nuclear subs off the North Korea coast

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y

Oops number three: You don't hire a lawyer who also represents the second largest Russian Bank to represent you to fight the reports about your collusion with Russia

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-marc-kasowitz-private-lawyer-russia-probe-investigation-comey-flynn-614438

And has everyone seen Melina slapping Trump's hand away when they arrive at Ben Gurion Airport? She also refused his hand when they arrive at Rome.

http://www.newsweek.com/melania-trump-hand-hold-president-donald-614300

[ 24. May 2017, 23:53: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Unsurprising. We all know where that hand has been.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
And none more so than the bimbo in chief.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
He also neglected to shake Bibi's hand.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
Yes, his hand.... and for that reason I have coined the phrase - "Make America grope again". I know I know, I'm brilliant.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
He's been having an interesting time at the NATO summit. Elbowing his way past leaders to stand at the front, then lecturing them that they "owe the US" money.

Whilst it might be true that other countries should be contributing more (although even that seems in dispute), it seems fairly clear that nobody owes back-payments to the USA.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
There is little dispute that the general agreement is 2% GDP for member states, and that there are 4 that meet that obligation.

The US nearly doubles that contribution.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
There is little dispute that the general agreement is 2% GDP for member states, and that there are 4 that meet that obligation.

The US nearly doubles that contribution.

I think that's about total spending on defense, not contributions to the NATO budget - which are agreed by NATO states themselves. AFAIU either NATO has been able to spend the available money each year or has reduced activities to meet the size of the budget. Nobody is to saying that states which have contributed less in the past somehow "owe" the USA except Trump.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Romanlion, welcome back. Would you like to share any other thoughts on the Trump presidency so far? We've been short of comments from non-Democrats.

[ 25. May 2017, 17:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
He's been having an interesting time at the NATO summit. Elbowing his way past leaders to stand at the front, then lecturing them that they "owe the US" money.

Whilst it might be true that other countries should be contributing more (although even that seems in dispute), it seems fairly clear that nobody owes back-payments to the USA.

Even if there prove to be some nations in arrears, bankruptcy Don is the last person on earth who should be lecturing someone else about paying their bills.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
To clarify, the 2% of GDP refers to total military expenditure, not NATO contribution. Trump seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that 2% of GDP is membership dues. To quote Himself, "Wrong." Further, the commitments to 2% were not commitments in a legal sense, and certainly not understood to be by the participants. It would better to understand 2% as aspirational. Rather like committing to being a good Christian.

Among the numerous things that were interesting in this morning's address was the strange conflation of anti-terrorist measures with warfare in its classical sense. Trump's yoking of the 2% with recent terrorist activity, being that not meeting the 2% is in direct relation to Manchester, etc. was either grossly mistaken or cynical. This is, of course, a failure to understand or deliberately to misrepresent warfare's evolving paradigm. In dealing with terrorism, it would produce greater clarity not to rely - or, at least, not too heavily - on "warfare" as the governing paragigm. Buying more tanks, guns, etc., will not win this., but I suspect that Trump does not have the intellectual equipment to understand this.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Oh this just keeps getting better: apparently when Trump met the Israeli PM, he left the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor outside the meeting and instead took his son-in-law Jared.

I get it now: this is The Apprentice, week 5. Trump is mixing the teams up just to see what happens.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Buying more tanks, guns, etc., will not win this., but I suspect that Trump does not have the intellectual equipment to understand this.

To be fair, this isn't just Trump. It is the American, especially Republican, basic strategy.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh this just keeps getting better: apparently when Trump met the Israeli PM, he left the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor outside the meeting and instead took his son-in-law Jared.

I get it now: this is The Apprentice, week 5. Trump is mixing the teams up just to see what happens.

Or could it be that his bizarre behaviours are attempts to cover up his total fright and panic at finding himself president?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Or that he simply can't (or doesn't care to) remember what his handlers surely must have told him about protocol?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I could find you a link, but staffers have learned to -not- tell Li'l Donny what not to say, because then they infallibly get blurted out. Last in the ear, first out the mouth. Usually it is four-year-olds who have this kind of issue.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Nations have gone to war for slights like pushing leaders aside. And that Mussolini pose does not help. You are to be an equal among equals, Don.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Romanlion, welcome back. Would you like to share any other thoughts on the Trump presidency so far? We've been short of comments from non-Democrats.

Thanks!

If I had to sum it up succinctly I suppose I would say sui generis...

As someone who has long followed US politics for entertainment, it has been beyond anything I could have sincerely imagined 2 years ago.

The foam-at-the-mouth hysterical idiocy of the opposition provides at will access to endless, blissful schadenfreude. Of course that's just crass self indulgence...

In real world terms, the Gorsuch nomination and the next (at least) one pending give me a measure of hope for my daughters, that the Republic may actually remain standing as intended into their children's lives.

On that mark alone he has proven the lesser of two evils by oom... Not that I voted for him, or ever will.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
In real world terms, the Gorsuch nomination and the next (at least) one pending give me a measure of hope for my daughters, that the Republic may actually remain standing as intended into their children's lives.

On that mark alone he has proven the lesser of two evils by oom... Not that I voted for him, or ever will.

It always seemed odd that someone as bland as Merrick Garland could elicit such hatred and hostility that he's regarded in some quarters as an outright threat to the continued existence of the American republic, but there it is, I guess.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
On that mark alone he has proven the lesser of two evils by oom...

Sorry for being thick, but what is oom?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
On that mark alone he has proven the lesser of two evils by oom...

Sorry for being thick, but what is oom?
Sorry, acronym for orders of magnitude.

And FWIW I have no opinion on Garland, having never seen him under Senate scrutiny. I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to research his decisions myself. All that's left is the opinion of media which is worthless...totally partisan, entrenched, and 80% bullshit from both sides. I certainly don't hate him or hold any hostility against him.

What I can say is that Gorsuch was brilliant in his Senate testimony. Measured, consistent, and affable...

It was during those hearings that I started to picture Al Franken with a big red nose on...I think they should make him wear one for real in the interest of accuracy.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From Wikipedia (and therefore The Truth):

'Out of memory (OOM) is an often undesired state of computer operation where no additional memory can be allocated for use by programs or the operating system.'

Perhaps that's what romanlion meant?

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
In real world terms, the Gorsuch nomination and the next (at least) one pending give me a measure of hope for my daughters, that the Republic may actually remain standing as intended into their children's lives.

Right, so you appear to espouse the "long game" view, where the most important aim of the presidency is to secure a Supreme Court that is sure to rule in line with your preferences, and nothing else matters?

What would you say to the challenge that Trump is doing a fair job of weakening the institutions that help uphold the Republic and the credibility of the office he holds?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
As an aside, I wonder if the numbers of those who witnessed Mr. Potus' motorcade through Brussels (capital country of the beautiful city of Belgium) were biglier than the YUGE crowd greeting Mr. Obama at his meeting with Frau Merkel in Berlin?

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks romanlion (and Bishops Finger!)

Looks like "losers" is the new word de jour. Not sure what I think. Sounds a bit childish, but terrorists are losers I suppose. Pathetic may be a term I'd prefer.

[ 25. May 2017, 22:43: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Not at all, even though I was wrong!

Orders of magnitude certainly makes more sense.

IJ
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Perhaps someone would like to tell Mr. Trump that losers are people too.

Some people make a success of their lives. Other people have the unerring knack of taking a silk purse and converting it into a sow's ear. Both kinds of people are his brothers and sisters, formed in God's image.

[ 25. May 2017, 23:00: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I am certain he would deny this. Vast swathes of humanity do not seem to count as human in his view -- Muslims, women, ugly people, etc.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Hang on... Trump is a very ugly bloke, surely? He was ugly when he was young too.

I reckon predicting how someone will act in a high judicial office is extremely perilous. It's like trying to predict what cases will come up during their time on the bench.

Welcome back Romanlion! I too follow politics like I used to follow sport. I even get into my own players more often than not.

Finally, I concede that Hillary is unelectable.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Meanwhile, the Fourth District Court of Appeals has declared the most recent Trump travel ban unconstitutional 8-3. Loser
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Leorning Cniht--

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Perhaps someone would like to tell Mr. Trump that losers are people too.

Some people make a success of their lives. Other people have the unerring knack of taking a silk purse and converting it into a sow's ear. Both kinds of people are his brothers and sisters, formed in God's image.

Ah, but there's the problem. His father sternly taught little Donald and the other kids that only winners are worthy of being loved. The competition drove one of T's brothers to alcoholism and early death. (That was in various coverage--possibly in the specials that PBS did on T and Hillary. T mentioned his brother during a "60 Minutes" interview. He actually displayed some compassion for his brother, and loss. I was surprised.)

T's friend, shock-jock Howard Stern, commented in the news on various aspects of T and his presidency, including "he just wants to be loved, like everyone else".

Makes me think of the poem
"Children Learn What They Live" (My Meditative Moments).
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
T's friend, shock-jock Howard Stern, commented in the news on various aspects of T and his presidency, including "he just wants to be loved, like everyone else".

That's similar to what Henry Kissinger said of Richard Nixon on the occasion of the latter's demise: "He could have been a great man if only someone had loved him." (Sorry, I don't have a link to the quote.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Howard Stern is worth quoting? He is even more disgusting than trump. Decline and fall.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I was surprised by Stern, too. I only know of him as a shock jock, and I haven't listened to his show, except for clips in the news. He once said something deeply personal and awful about his wife, on the air, and she was furious, and he apologized on the air. (I gather that's not something he'd normally do.) And he embarrassed George Takei on air. GT's "Ohhhhh, mmmMYYYyyyyy!" response has become quite the meme.

I've wondered if Stern's explanations of T are really meant as messages to T. Paraphrased, they might be something like "hey, Don, you know I love you; you never wanted that job; remember you wanted Hillary to win; this job doesn't play to your strengths, and you'll wind up a loser; why not resign, and be a winner somewhere else, where they will love you more?"

May T follow that message, and soon.
[Votive]

[ 26. May 2017, 03:14: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Poverty a 'state of mind'

Thanks Carson. Blame the victim.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Oh yeah. When I saw that I thought Carson was running flak for the boss, but on reflection it's in character.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Meanwhile, the Fourth District Court of Appeals has declared the most recent Trump travel ban unconstitutional 8-3. Loser

10-3, really. I still need to listen to Vladeck and Chesney's National Security Law Podcast episode on this, but Vladeck's general rundown is pretty helpful. Some pretty technical arguments, but interesting for how this may play out in the future.
Yay, #AppellateTwitter!
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Thank you for the correction. I knew that a minority of three justices dissented I assumed there were 11 justices on the bench, not 13. I stand corrected.

In other news it had been reported last Friday a senior White House official was a person of interest in the Russian Collusion investigation. Tonight, that official was named Jarod Kushner, son in law of the POTUS. Kushner conveniently forgot to list all the foreign contacts he had. Of particular interest is his connection to a Russian Bank that funds many of the Russian spy networks. This bank helped bankroll the Trump property in Toronto

Does anyone else smell smoke? Why is it getting hot around the Don?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Oh yeah. When I saw that I thought Carson was running flak for the boss, but on reflection it's in character.

The ever-articulate John Scalzi
explains why the 'poverty state of mind' thing is so pernicious. This is a free click.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Here's an article explaining why Donald Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. This is a free click, too.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
And a very depressing read, too.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I've said it before and have yet to be proven wrong: People are stupid.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've said it before and have yet to be proven wrong: People are stupid.

Well, at least they have some representation.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've said it before and have yet to be proven wrong: People are stupid.

Well, at least they have some representation.
Those who voted for Trump got what they deserved. The problem is the rest of the world didn't deserve him, but we still got him.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
IMHO, the ones most to blame are politicians, donors, powerful people, Russian operatives, etc., who had a pretty good idea of what he is and of his severe impairments--and supported him anyway, for their own agendas and to keep the Republicans in power.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Viva la France!
Viva la Macron!
Viva la Snub Extroardinaire!
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
What's that about then, dear Australian friend? Anything I missed? An encounter/non-encounter I didn't notice? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That would be this, I think.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Ah! Très bien! (i.e. 'Very good!') - Thank you.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I think M. Macron showed both good taste, and politeness, in greeting the lady first.

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I read that in fact he was following protocol by greeting the various heads of state in order of seniority (measured in terms of their time in office). Trump surely doesn't understand protocol, so he was doubly shamed here it seems to me.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Fair enough - but Baby Trumpling did look as though he felt he should have been greeted first, being The Great Leader Of The World, and all.

OTOH, M. Macron, young sprog though he be, showed typical Gallic charm, poise, and grace.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
And it appears that Potus pushed aside the Montenegrin PM, Duško Marković, in order to get to the front of the group.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40050926/trump-pushes-past-montenegro-s-pm

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Fourth graders (ca 10 yo) reading from Donald Trump's speeches.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O dear - that video 'cannot be played in my location'. Obviously, Potty Trumpling's Thought Police have penetrated the UK.

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Is this the same one?

I can see that here. It will appeal to the Trump has a limited vocabulary crowd.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I just realized something: given that T has (co-)written several books, he'll likely write at least one about his presidency--however long it is.

Possible titles:

--My Greatness.

--How My Greatness Won The Presidency.

--How I, Trump, Saved The World.

--The Fun Of Being A/The Messiah.

--What's Next For The Trump?

--Thank You, Me, For A Very Great, I Mean Really Greatest Life.

This applies to the discussion, but I think I'm going to start a Circus thread and copy this in.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Living With Dementia - A Guide to the Best Election Win in History
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have been hearing of a person who had paranoid delusions that everyone who was attempting to help them was a demon of some sort. They were found to have mental capacity to run their own life.

Presumably the President can also be found to have mental capacity.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Sort of like the old "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't really out to get you."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I just realized something: given that T has (co-)written several books, he'll likely [have ghost written] at least one about his presidency--however long it is.

Possible titles: . . .

"My Struggle"? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Been thought of: Alec Baldwin as 45, in the 'Saturday Night Live' cold open, 5 February 2017; scene starts 3'15" in - the entire sketch is rather watchable though. [Smile]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Been thought of: Alec Baldwin as 45, in the 'Saturday Night Live' cold open, 5 February 2017; scene starts 3'15" in - the entire sketch is rather watchable though. [Smile]

McKinnon is so awesome in this one -- acting by facial expression alone.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The realism is absolutely chilling.....

[Ultra confused] [Ultra confused] [Ultra confused]

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Croesos--

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I just realized something: given that T has (co-)written several books, he'll likely [have ghost written] at least one about his presidency--however long it is.

Possible titles: . . .

"My Struggle"? [Big Grin]
LOL. Probably, and likely without any awareness of the reference.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
--Game: I've started a "Trump's Tale Titles" thread in the Circus.

--Messiahship: I alluded to this in one of the titles. I've been wondering if T thinks of himself as a/the Messiah. His various comments about how he's the only one who can set the world right, including the Middle East, could lean that way. If, in his deluded mind, he believes that he *really* is God's anointed, he'd see that as license to do whatever he wants--because, of course, God must trust him.

--"Trumping Your Life": Speaking of delusions, a deluded shrink, who works for Fox News, is writing a series of articles on "How to be a better, stronger person by being more like the president". If it wasn't at Fox, I might think it was satire.

[Paranoid]

--Cartoons!: The San Jose Mercury News has several cartoons on Trump vs. the Pope.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Game: I've started a "Trump's Tale Titles" thread in the Circus.

--Messiahship: I alluded to this in one of the titles. I've been wondering if T thinks of himself as a/the Messiah. His various comments about how he's the only one who can set the world right, including the Middle East, could lean that way. If, in his deluded mind, he believes that he *really* is God's anointed, he'd see that as license to do whatever he wants--because, of course, God must trust him.

--"Trumping Your Life": Speaking of delusions, a deluded shrink, who works for Fox News, is writing a series of articles on "How to be a better, stronger person by being more like the president". If it wasn't at Fox, I might think it was satire.

[Paranoid]

--Cartoons!: The San Jose Mercury News has several cartoons on Trump vs. the Pope.

ETA: Any idea on what the pope is carrying in picture #6? Thx.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
ETA is Estimated Time of Arrival in my acronym dictionary [Smile]

Is he taking a wrench to the papacy?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
"Edited to add"
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
So, who won the handshake between Macron and Trump?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Macron won, I think.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
ETA is Estimated Time of Arrival in my acronym dictionary [Smile]

Is he taking a wrench to the papacy?

One end of the wrench has some sort of strange implement, and that's what I can't figure out.


mt-

-Thanks for explaining "ETA".
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
What moronic imbicility re handshakes. Doesn't read books. Doesn't care to understand anything except himself. Melanoma or what ever his 3rd wife's name is, why is she called FLOTUS? Sounds a lot like his FLATTUS. She wants him dead right? This version of Camelot needs to go back to the alternate Star Trek universe where it came from.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Melania is First Lady Of The United States, so FLOTUS. Her husband is POTUS. There are similar terms for the VP and wife. Same terms used in each administration.

Then there are the Secret Service code names, which are unique to each person in their care.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
T left an...interesting....note in the visitors' book at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum (CBS).

quote:
His message read, "It is a great honor to be here with all of my friends – so amazing & will never forget!"
Sounds like something you'd write in the visitors' book at the Grand Canyon. The article quotes the comments previous presidents have left, and Hillary (as Sect'y of State).
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
We're knights of the round table, we dance whenever we're able. We do routines and make up scenes and impersonate Clarke Gable. It's a fine life here in Camelot we eat ham and jam and spamalot.

Spam is a crime against humanity. A misdemeanor, but still a crime.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
A rather long read you may find interesting.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The ever-articulate John Scalzi
explains why the 'poverty state of mind' thing is so pernicious. This is a free click.

Thank you; a good read. Deserves to be read widely.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Then there are the Secret Service code names, which are unique to each person in their care.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Miss Amanda--

The code names are probably online somewhere. They sometimes leak out.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Assuming (a big one) that Trump does not contest the next Presidential election, who would people like to see as the Republican Candidate?

Ryan?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Assuming (a big one) that Trump does not contest the next Presidential election, who would people like to see as the Republican Candidate?

Ryan?

Someone with absolutely no credibility and entirely unsuitable for the position.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Assuming (a big one) that Trump does not contest the next Presidential election, who would people like to see as the Republican Candidate?

Ryan?

These eighth graders* don't seem to support Ryan.

[Biased]

*probably about 14 years old
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is very nice the Washington POST's book editor comparing Li'l Donny to Lear.

And I am informed this is not a crime in the US. But in Britain isn't it illegal to steal someone else's coat of arms?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Well, Jeremy Thorpe stole some.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And I am informed this is not a crime in the US. But in Britain isn't it illegal to steal someone else's coat of arms?

How fitting that he removed integrity from the Coat and replaced it with himself. You couldn't get more symbolically accurate if you tried.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, it's almost too heavy-handed and symbolic. If you put it into a book your editor would say, gently, "You know dear, you've made your point. Don't belabor the dead horse, would you?"
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
ETA is Estimated Time of Arrival in my acronym dictionary [Smile]

Is he taking a wrench to the papacy?

One end of the wrench has some sort of strange implement, and that's what I can't figure out.


mt-

-Thanks for explaining "ETA".

I thought it was the Papal hat, or the hat from the Vatican's coat of arms/seal. Whatever, it certainly means institutional Catholicism. [Smile]

By the way, I noticed that my posts yesterday gradually deteriorated to the point where I suggested that Paul Ryan might make an OK President. I'm relieved that in the post immediately preceding, I sang a silly song from Monty Python.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Op-ed on radio this morn had it: The End of America's Century. Noting that Angela Merkel had to show trumpy a map so he could see Russia's position and goals in the mid-east. The glib and oily trumpy doesn't listen to briefings and prides himself on not reading. His preening in front of other leaders, who observedly rolled their eyes at him. Did trumpy finish highschool? his handshaking competition signals no. His taking sides in the Shia-Sunni conflict by further arming Saudi Arabia. His harange about NATO funding (more rolling eyes). His statement about pulling out of the Paris Accord on Climate. And everyone knowing that trumpy is likely to say the opposite on everything next week.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What hath Fox wrought? This is a free click. My father, who passed away earlier this year, had his final years continually roiled by watching Faux News. We begged him to at least watch some of the other stations, so that he wouldn't wind up screaming at the screen.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) did Pigs (Three Different Ones)
with specific reference to trumpy. The link is Facebook, but can be seen without logging into FB.

quote:
Big man, pig man, ha ha, charade you are,
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha, charade you are.



[ 30. May 2017, 17:07: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
In real world terms, the Gorsuch nomination and the next (at least) one pending give me a measure of hope for my daughters, that the Republic may actually remain standing as intended into their children's lives.

Right, so you appear to espouse the "long game" view, where the most important aim of the presidency is to secure a Supreme Court that is sure to rule in line with your preferences, and nothing else matters?
Not at all. The point was that the impact of his selection of Gorsuch as AJ is profoundly positive and long lasting, particularly when compared with who might have been chosen under another POTUS...


quote:

What would you say to the challenge that Trump is doing a fair job of weakening the institutions that help uphold the Republic and the credibility of the office he holds?

Can you be more specific about institutions and methods?

I would say that he has had virtually no impact in a few months compared to the irresponsible and unpatriotic accumulation of debt by his predecessor.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Can you be more specific about institutions and methods?

Off the top of my head: preparing an EO that took a court virtually no time to strike down damages the credibility of his office; summarily firing justice appointees immediately in the wake of court decisions not in his favour damages the independence of the judiciary.

Taking so long to fill many positions in government administration weakens the checks and balances of that administration.

Similarly, firing Comey when he did damages both people's trust in the intelligence services and confidence in his willingness to be held to account.

Contradicting official information supplied by his staff and continually firing off partisan tweets damages the office of the president.

Similarly, constant criticism of the media, allegations of fake news, and false equivalence (most lately, the creative redefinition of Kushner's alleged overtures to the Russians for off-the-record communications as a "back channel" equivalent to that in the Cuban missile crisis era) is an abuse of the institution of the press.

His diplomatic gaffes (such as suggesting Israel was not part of the Middle East) weaken the foreign perception of the presidency and the US.

His conflicts of interest - blatant diversion of taxpayer funds into his own private club by frequent use of Mar-a-Lago and the presence of family members in the White House with influence but no accountability - inflict further damage to the legitimacy of the presidency.

That will do for a start.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

I would say that he has had virtually no impact in a few months compared to the irresponsible and unpatriotic accumulation of debt by his predecessor.

By which I assume you're referring to his predecessor Geo. W Bush running up the deficit through massive, unfunded wars and Medicare part D, to say nothing of removing oversight that might have prevented or at least minimized the costly impact of the housing crash/bank fiascos?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
In real world terms, the Gorsuch nomination and the next (at least) one pending give me a measure of hope for my daughters, that the Republic may actually remain standing as intended into their children's lives.

Right, so you appear to espouse the "long game" view, where the most important aim of the presidency is to secure a Supreme Court that is sure to rule in line with your preferences, and nothing else matters?
Not at all. The point was that the impact of his selection of Gorsuch as AJ is profoundly positive and long lasting, particularly when compared with who might have been chosen under another POTUS...
For someone who claims to "have no opinion on [Merrick] Garland" you don't seem to be able to resist an opportunity to bag on him.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is another variant on the King Lear theme. Free click.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Can you be more specific about institutions and methods?

Off the top of my head: preparing an EO that took a court virtually no time to strike down damages the credibility of his office; summarily firing justice appointees immediately in the wake of court decisions not in his favour damages the independence of the judiciary.
We are talking about the 9th here, right? The suggestion that anything a POTUS does damages their credibility is a bit of a stretch, considering they have none. And we don't want to go tit-for-tat on Justice appointee firings, do we?

quote:
Taking so long to fill many positions in government administration weakens the checks and balances of that administration.

Personally I don't think that the absence of a few hundred bureaucrats weakens much of anything. Those jobs still get done by experienced career people. I expect he will leave many of them unfilled in perpetuity.

quote:
Similarly, firing Comey when he did damages both people's trust in the intelligence services and confidence in his willingness to be held to account.

So it was just poor timing? I think reasonable people recognize that it was Trump's prerogative to fire Comey, and that it had zero impact on any ongoing "investigation" being conducted by the Bureau.

quote:
Contradicting official information supplied by his staff and continually firing off partisan tweets damages the office of the president.

Give him a little credit for the act he follows. He can polish till the day he dies and his bullshit will never shine like Barry's. Jedi-pol he is not...

quote:
Similarly, constant criticism of the media, allegations of fake news, and false equivalence (most lately, the creative redefinition of Kushner's alleged overtures to the Russians for off-the-record communications as a "back channel" equivalent to that in the Cuban missile crisis era) is an abuse of the institution of the press.

The press has earned any abuse they get. And his base sops it up like gravy on a biscuit.

quote:
His diplomatic gaffes (such as suggesting Israel was not part of the Middle East) weaken the foreign perception of the presidency and the US.

Again, no need to go tit-for-tat, but it didn't seem to impact his reception last week. (And he didn't even bow to the King! [Ultra confused] )

quote:
His conflicts of interest - blatant diversion of taxpayer funds into his own private club by frequent use of Mar-a-Lago and the presence of family members in the White House with influence but no accountability - inflict further damage to the legitimacy of the presidency.

None of these things bother me, and I don't think that they are new or unique to Trump in any way. Funny that you mention family members in the White House with influence but no accountability considering who Trump defeated...
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
(And he didn't even bow to the King! [Ultra confused] )

'Twas a delightful curtsey, though.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
How significant is Dubke's resignation? I heard an interview with Bush's comms director, name forgotten but he was there 3 years, who said people come and go in administrations, and the chief job was to echo the President's thoughts.

I can understand the latter for more, say, balanced and consistent Presidents, but does the comms director have [and should they have?] any input to give to the President?

And the Russian enquiry expands...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
How significant is Dubke's resignation? I heard an interview with Bush's comms director, name forgotten but he was there 3 years, who said people come and go in administrations, and the chief job was to echo the President's thoughts.

I can understand the latter for more, say, balanced and consistent Presidents, but does the comms director have [and should they have?] any input to give to the President?

I mostly agree with Charlie Pierce's take:

quote:
Some guy you never heard of left a job that, given the available public evidence, was largely an honorary position anyway.
Plus his snark that this will give the press yet another excuse to write a whole new raft of "Trump Pivot!!!" articles.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Contradicting official information supplied by his staff and continually firing off partisan tweets damages the office of the president.

Give him a little credit for the act he follows. He can polish till the day he dies and his bullshit will never shine like Barry's. Jedi-pol he is not...
Speaking of the soft bigotry of low expectations (give Trump credit for not being as articulate as the guy the American right spent eight years saying was completely inarticulate without a teleprompter [Roll Eyes] ), I came across this gem today:

quote:
To respond to this assertion that working for Donald Trump is awful, the White House’s Hope Hicks released a remarkable statement that was absolutely not dictated by her boss while he paced behind her, furiously chewing gum:

quote:
President Trump has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000. He has built great relationships throughout his life and treats everyone with respect. He is brilliant with a great sense of humor . . . and an amazing ability to make people feel special and aspire to be more than even they thought possible.

It might have been simpler to just say "Donald Trump is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life." It would be just as convincing, and classics are classic for a reason.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of the soft bigotry of low expectations (give Trump credit for not being as articulate as the guy the American right spent eight years saying was completely inarticulate without a teleprompter [Roll Eyes] )

Do you need a link to video of the stuttering idiot he became when his prompter failed?

I can provide that if necessary...

Or, just google "Obama stutters"...that'll do...

[ 31. May 2017, 01:34: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
ahhh, opinions that are different. Nice.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of the soft bigotry of low expectations (give Trump credit for not being as articulate as the guy the American right spent eight years saying was completely inarticulate without a teleprompter [Roll Eyes] )

Do you need a link to video of the stuttering idiot he became when his prompter failed?

I can provide that if necessary...

Or, just google "Obama stutters"...that'll do...

You have made your point bigly.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is another variant on the King Lear theme. Free click.

So true. It makes me pity him. Is it his fault he was treated so as a child, warping his personality into such a narcissist - then inheriting billions to squander as he wished?

I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Teleprompters. It's disconcerting to have to wing it when they break down. Obama is generally good at accepting his gaffes. He can laugh at himself, see the ludicrous for what it is. It's just one of the risks public figures face these days. I don't think it tells you too much about anybody's character or capabities.

Whereas going off script wilfully when the teleprompter doesn't break down and making a gaffe as a result does tell you something about a public figure. Those who do so underestimate the risks related to winging it in the modern age, when every word is weighed and may be replayed.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
The truth is out. Trump is officially a child. White House officials have started limiting his screen time. Hopefully they’ll soon be insisting on a regular bedtime routine and sending him to the corner for a timeout when he calls people nasty names.

Also Mr “Hillary’s emails!!!!” has apparently been handing out his personal cell phone number to foreign leaders. As the article points out, it is safe to assume that said foreign leaders have handed the number straight over to their intelligence services. If I was Angela Merkel, I’d be listening in on principle.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Boogie--


quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is another variant on the King Lear theme. Free click.

So true. It makes me pity him. Is it his fault he was treated so as a child, warping his personality into such a narcissist - then inheriting billions to squander as he wished?

I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?

Blame the donors, the rich, the powerful who knew what he is, and supported him for their own agendas.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?

Why? The voters preferred Hillary Clinton by about two percentage points.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?

Why? The voters preferred Hillary Clinton by about two percentage points.
One of the most cogent criticisms of outraged Democrat voters I've seen from the right (and let's face it, there aren't many...) is the impression the former sometimes give that the election was won unfairly.

I take all the points about voter suppression and other kinks in the system that mean that the popular vote doesn't decide the outcome, but I think it's especially pointless to bemoan the latter in particular for this mandate. It gives the impression that non-Republicans are essentially in denial about the outcome.

Activism to improve the voting system shouldn't be confused with criticism of the current administration.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I blame the voters - but would that be victim blaming?

Why? The voters preferred Hillary Clinton by about two percentage points.
One of the most cogent criticisms of outraged Democrat voters I've seen from the right (and let's face it, there aren't many...) is the impression the former sometimes give that the election was won unfairly.

I take all the points about voter suppression and other kinks in the system that mean that the popular vote doesn't decide the outcome, but I think it's especially pointless to bemoan the latter in particular for this mandate. It gives the impression that non-Republicans are essentially in denial about the outcome.

Activism to improve the voting system shouldn't be confused with criticism of the current administration.

I'm willing to concede that Donald Trump has completed all the Constitutional requirements to legally exercise the powers of the U.S. presidency. What I object to is translating that into portraying him as the choice of "the voters" or "the people". I concede that the U.S. uses a somewhat non-democratic method to select the president that sometimes vomits up a second-place finisher to head the executive branch. Unless you also win the popular vote you don't get to claim that "the voters" get credit/blame for your victory. I see repeated attempts to cast Trump in this light as of a piece with his claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration: an attempt to portray an historically unpopular president* as being popular.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I object to is translating that into portraying him as the choice of "the voters" or "the people". I concede that the U.S. uses a somewhat non-democratic method to select the president that sometimes vomits up a second-place finisher to head the executive branch. Unless you also win the popular vote you don't get to claim that "the voters" get credit/blame for your victory. I see repeated attempts to cast Trump in this light as of a piece with his claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration: an attempt to portray an historically unpopular president* as being popular.

Regardless of who is President, there is often a claim that winning the election results in a "mandate." Here is an interesting pre-election analysis of the Presidential claims of mandates.
quote:
President Franklin Roosevelt rarely invoked the election result when he was presenting early New Deal ideas in 1933, but more recent presidents such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have frequently invoked the election to justify their policy ideas, big and small. The major turning point appears to have been the Nixon and Carter administrations, neither of which tend to come to mind when we think of major presidential mandates. Documents from these administrations reveal that references to election results were less about the results themselves and more about the need for presidents to justify their leadership in an increasingly hostile political environment. Party polarization had begun, trust in institutions had declined, and as a result, the presidency no longer commanded the respect it once did. In other words, reaching for rhetoric about “doing what I was elected to do” or “fulfilling the promises of my campaign” has become a standard way of defending presidential legitimacy in general.
(Emphasis added.)

So, while I agree with you that a politician shouldn't act as if their electoral victory was a signal that everything the politician thinks is endorsed by "the people," they will do so because politicians of whatever stripe love to wallow in rhetoric. It isn't just a Trump thing. It is a politician thing.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What I object to is translating that into portraying him as the choice of "the voters" or "the people". I concede that the U.S. uses a somewhat non-democratic method to select the president that sometimes vomits up a second-place finisher to head the executive branch. Unless you also win the popular vote you don't get to claim that "the voters" get credit/blame for your victory. I see repeated attempts to cast Trump in this light as of a piece with his claims about the size of the crowd at his inauguration: an attempt to portray an historically unpopular president* as being popular.

Regardless of who is President, there is often a claim that winning the election results in a "mandate." Here is an interesting pre-election analysis of the Presidential claims of mandates.
quote:
President Franklin Roosevelt rarely invoked the election result when he was presenting early New Deal ideas in 1933, but more recent presidents such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have frequently invoked the election to justify their policy ideas, big and small. The major turning point appears to have been the Nixon and Carter administrations, neither of which tend to come to mind when we think of major presidential mandates. Documents from these administrations reveal that references to election results were less about the results themselves and more about the need for presidents to justify their leadership in an increasingly hostile political environment. Party polarization had begun, trust in institutions had declined, and as a result, the presidency no longer commanded the respect it once did. In other words, reaching for rhetoric about “doing what I was elected to do” or “fulfilling the promises of my campaign” has become a standard way of defending presidential legitimacy in general.
(Emphasis added.)

So, while I agree with you that a politician shouldn't act as if their electoral victory was a signal that everything the politician thinks is endorsed by "the people," they will do so because politicians of whatever stripe love to wallow in rhetoric. It isn't just a Trump thing. It is a politician thing.

True. But at least those prior examples were presidents who were, you know, elected by the majority of Americans. So, while their use of the rhetoric was self-serving it was also mostly true-- unlike Trump's claim.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But at least those prior examples were presidents who were, you know, elected by the majority of Americans.

No. They were elected by the majority of Americans who bothered to vote. If voter turnout in the US were closer to what it is elsewhere, history would have run a very different course indeed.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
The original Constitution was not about the popular vote, but of the states being united.

Originally, while the House of Representatives were elected based on the population of a state, the Senate was intended to be selected by the state legislatures. Each state has two Senators as a way of keeping all states equal. The Senate itself was intended as a counterpoint to the popular vote of the House.

Likewise, the election of the president and vice president were never about the majority of the vote, but about the preferences of the state. Each state legislature was entitled to select a slate of electors, based on the number of representatives and senators the state had.

The person holding the office of President was to be the President of the United STATES, not the majority of the popular vote.

It did not take too long before state legislatures abdicated their right to the will of the people, states began to allow the vote of the people to determine who was going to be the state electors fairly early. By 1824, eighteen states chose their electors by popular vote. Six states were still using the legislative system. I really can't find an amendment that specifically says the electors are to be elected by popular vote, it just seemed to evolve. There is an amendment that eventually allowed the popular vote of each state to determine their Senators, but there is no such amendment concerning the president.

Other countries also use electoral college systems. Germany comes to mind.

Even if, for some reason, no one was able to get a majority of the electoral college vote, the election would then go to the House, but each state would only have one vote. Again, it is about the state, not the voter.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But at least those prior examples were presidents who were, you know, elected by the majority of Americans.

No. They were elected by the majority of Americans who bothered to vote. If voter turnout in the US were closer to what it is elsewhere, history would have run a very different course indeed.
Yes, sorry-- I should have said "voters". But the point remains: as much as there is a dubious history of claiming "mandate" to endorse your agenda, Trump has taken it to a new low by claiming a mandate when in fact he failed to clear even the very low bar of gaining the support of the majority of people who bothered to come out to vote.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Was listening to the News Quiz on the way to work yeaterday and Andrew Murray came out with this pearler:

Trump is all golden top with no toilet.

Now that is quality abuse [Smile]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Gramps49, our Founding Fathers also thought slavery was peachy-keen, and bent over backwards to ensure it was legal and enmeshed into our laws. Yes they set up the government so that the people would have little say. But we grew out of it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Even if, for some reason, no one was able to get a majority of the electoral college vote, the election would then go to the House, but each state would only have one vote. Again, it is about the state, not the voter.

Further evidence that Randall Munroe lurks on the Ship: today's xkcd is entitled voting systems.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Baby Trumpling helps wreck the world:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/0

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I liked the part where he said he is going to stop the world laughing at the USA.

Believe me, we're already laughing.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I liked the part where he said he is going to stop the world laughing at the USA.

Believe me, we're already laughing.

I'm not laughing, I'm crying.

I want to [Projectile]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm not laughing, I'm crying.

I want to [Projectile]

I think I'm through the grief stage and into hysterical laughing.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I am reminded of a story from a bishop of Norwich, on the technique for leading the people of Norfolk. It's like leading pigs. First you find out where they want to go, and then you walk in front of them.

Whereas falsely smiling, self congratulating Trumpikins tries leading by finding out where everyone else wants to go and stomping off in the opposite direction, still claiming to be a world leader.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
World leader? World bleeder, more like.

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
trumpy probably hasn't read any of the briefing notes on the Paris accord. And he might tweet something marginally coherent tomorrow morning where he changes his mind. We all have to stop seeing the USA as a nation whose opinion matters, which has any relevance to world affairs, and we mustn't seek its approval unless it is going go drone bomb us. Oh where's the toilet?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It seems that at least some state governors are saying they are intending to honour the spirit of the Paris agreement anyway. Could an issue such as this actually fragment the Union in the long term?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
There's a thought. Anyone for Anti-President?

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That is, along the lines of the Anti-Popes, or even the Anti-Christ...

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Bullshitter in Chief?

I'm even more disturbed, if possible, after reading analyses of Trump's bullshit and methods. Frightening from across the Pacific; can have no idea what it is like for you all.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
BTW, McCain is (was? - not sure if he's left) here. Odd that someone who stood next to Palin now looks exceptionally mainstream! I know he's got a long and distinguished record, but I still cannot separate him and Palin in mind.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
BTW, McCain is (was? - not sure if he's left) here. . . . I still cannot separate him and Palin in mind.

Easy. He does have a mind.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
The rest of the world needs to start to identify US industries and products made using fossil fuels and look at alternatives. Just discussing it will send a message. Maybe start talking loudly as the next US election cycle starts getting going.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
BTW, McCain is (was? - not sure if he's left) here. Odd that someone who stood next to Palin now looks exceptionally mainstream!

You're not the only one surprised. A columnist in the Phoenix newspaper wrote today about pretty much the same thing: Crazy Uncle John explains Crazy Uncle Donald.

Of course, Trump did not endear himself to McCain two years ago when he said “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

(McCain, a former Navy pilot, spent over five years in the notorious North Vietnamese prison known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was repeatedly tortured, two of those years in solitary confinement.)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm not laughing, I'm crying.

I want to [Projectile]

I think I'm through the grief stage and into hysterical laughing.
Ah! There's my next sign. "The world is LAUGHING at us". Perhaps a graphic of a clown.

To go with the one that will say, "Life is a Pre-Existing Condition".
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems that at least some state governors are saying they are intending to honour the spirit of the Paris agreement anyway. Could an issue such as this actually fragment the Union in the long term?

Jerry Brown of California, my governor, is one of them. From what I heard today, he has an upcoming meeting with China about the environment, but I'm not sure of the focus. I think it's good that Jerry is our governor now. He was gov. once before (late '70s?); trained as a Jesuit, but not ordained; into Zen back then, IIRC; an environmentalist, IIRC; fiery; a man of his times; some people made fun of him and California; and he and Linda Ronstadt were an item! He's grown and grown up a lot; has more balance; still fiery; and has become a bit of a curmudgeon. So he's ready to take this challenge on.

Not sure re fragmenting. We've got all sorts of fractures and fault lines, and we always have. Plus "states' rights"--which have often been used for evil; but there can be good uses, too. Saving the environment might be one of them.

I don't think this, *on its own*, would be enough to seriously fragment the US. But groups that are already leaning towards secession (many), and also believe in climate change (Cascadia independence movement* (Wikipedia)) , might take it as a "go!" signal.

[Votive]

*Presumed to believe in climate change, given the environmentalist streak in the places involved.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Even if, for some reason, no one was able to get a majority of the electoral college vote, the election would then go to the House, but each state would only have one vote. Again, it is about the state, not the voter.

I've severely mixed feelings about the electoral college, because of the 2016 election and also the Bush/Gore mess. Both times, they could've saved us from disaster, and didn't.

OTOH, the electoral college gave us Lincoln. (Though, with what he went through, up to the end, he might've preferred losing.)
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I appreciate that people further up the thread are venting in the face of another bad decision by Trump. I just want to reaffirm that the United States is not Donald J. Trump, and it contains a large variety of political views, including on the environment.

Let's not forget that California has been more progressive than my own country on the environment. I can remember being amazed at the miles and miles of wind farms between San Francisco and Stockton in 1983.

People are talking up the Paris Agreement at the moment, but my memory is that it was criticised as 'a good start but not enough' at the time. I have done a brief search but can't find evidence of this on google. I'm not convinced that this decision is a useful beating stick. I much prefer misuse of office or treason.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Simontoad: I understand your pain, but right now ronald rdump is king of California and the whole of America so far as the world sees and as foreign policy.

Is revolution possible? You had one before. Is this ruler as bad as the one for the last one?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
McCain, a former Navy pilot, spent over five years in the notorious North Vietnamese prison known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was repeatedly tortured, two of those years in solitary confinement.

And even now does not have full use of his arms. I've learned to respect John McCain. But let's see if his actions match his words.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems that at least some state governors are saying they are intending to honour the spirit of the Paris agreement anyway. Could an issue such as this actually fragment the Union in the long term?

I doubt it. In some ways, that's how it's supposed to work—states as "laboratories of democracy," per Justice Brandeis, for example.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
McCain, a former Navy pilot, spent over five years in the notorious North Vietnamese prison known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was repeatedly tortured, two of those years in solitary confinement.

And even now does not have full use of his arms. I've learned to respect John McCain. But let's see if his actions match his words.
I'd have more respect for him if he had died there.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
McCain also turned down an opportunity to leave captivity, so he could support the other men.

I'm not sure I could do that. I'd probably be more inclined to leave, then spend all my time working to get the others out.

There are things I loathe about McCain, like his temper and frequent nastiness, and perhaps being too devoted to his party, But he went through hell, can sometimes be funny, and seems to be respected on Capitol Hill.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Simontoad: I understand your pain, but right now ronald rdump is king of California and the whole of America so far as the world sees and as foreign policy.

Is revolution possible? You had one before. Is this ruler as bad as the one for the last one?

Yeah but if he's a King, he's a constitutional monarch and revolution is achieved by operation of law.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
McCain, a former Navy pilot, spent over five years in the notorious North Vietnamese prison known as the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was repeatedly tortured, two of those years in solitary confinement.

And even now does not have full use of his arms. I've learned to respect John McCain. But let's see if his actions match his words.
I'd have more respect for him if he had died there.
Shame on you Romanlion. That is an awful post.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I'd have more respect for him if he had died there.

Shame on you Romanlion. That is an awful post.
Not even Trump went that far.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Ah, Mr. Trump, when you cite a particular city as the reason for your decision, make sure that city is on the same page with you. Pittsburgh mayor's reponse to Trump's decision.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Romanlion

While I have had problems with McCain's service record and his positions when he ran for President, I, for one, was happy that he was returned to the US as part of the Peace Accords we signed with Hanoi in Paris.

At one time he was considered a radical conservative within the Republican party. Now he is considered a moderate within the same party. His positions have not changed. The party has changed.

At least, he is willing to work across the aisle for the good of the country. That is the sign of a true statesman. Would that more people from both parties work together for the good of the country.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Indeed, I would say the few remaining Republicans like McCain who remain committed to country over party, and are, you know, sane and rational are-- God help us-- our last hope.
[Help]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
McCain used to be considered by some as a "maverick," but he'd gotten less so over the years. He certainly sold out to the GOP when he ran for President. I believe he voted to approve all but one of Trump's appointments.

Now I think the only reason he's resisting Trump is because Trump hurt his feelings. It's possible he thinks his going against Trump is that it will improve his chances of being re-elected (apparently a lot of Republicans are beginning to wonder about this), but he's 80 years old, so many Arizonans doubt that he'll run again.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
McCain is a classic Greek tragedy set in three acts:
McCain 1.0 was reasonable, civil, centrist and incredibly witty. Even when I disagreed with him I liked him
McCain 2.0 emerged in 2008 when, after suffering as the first victim of Karl Roves unethical electioneering practices he decided to throw in his lot with the dark side. Ultimately he didn't have the stomach for it
McCain 3.0 is a grumpy old man who's been battered down by life, sitting on his porch yelling at the kids to get off his lawn

But every now and then we still see glimpses of 1.0. We need him now more than ever
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Now I think the only reason he's resisting Trump is because Trump hurt his feelings.

Is John McCain "resisting" Trump in any meaningful way? He often purses his lips, scowls, and talks about how "concerned" he is about various things the Trump administration has done (or is alleged to have done), but he hasn't actually done about these concerns that I'm aware of. Maybe if he were a member of an organization empowered to exercise oversight over the executive branch, perhaps even serving on a committee to keep an eye on "Governmental Affairs", McCain might be able to do something substantive. As it is, what can he do? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems that at least some state governors are saying they are intending to honour the spirit of the Paris agreement anyway. Could an issue such as this actually fragment the Union in the long term?

You heard it here first: Blue States Form Climate Alliance After Trump Withdraws From Paris Pact
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Wow. Full marks to them. Is this the first shot, as it were, of the next Civil War?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
McCain is a classic Greek tragedy set in three acts:
McCain 1.0 was reasonable, civil, centrist and incredibly witty. Even when I disagreed with him I liked him
McCain 2.0 emerged in 2008 when, after suffering as the first victim of Karl Roves unethical electioneering practices he decided to throw in his lot with the dark side. Ultimately he didn't have the stomach for it
McCain 3.0 is a grumpy old man who's been battered down by life, sitting on his porch yelling at the kids to get off his lawn

But every now and then we still see glimpses of 1.0. We need him now more than ever

McCain just finished a goodwill tour in Australia and he did a great job of refreshing the Old Alliance, which to be truthful was never in doubt even considering Trump. His speeches, televised live on our 24 hr news channel, were well received and he is considered a great friend of this country.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
On a personal note, I think my kids are thinking I have reached Gramps 3.0 myself. Really can't help it because of pain issues.

Eight states have now joined the US Climate Alliance. Another 11 are expected to join shortly.

News Item: Three labor investigators looking at the Chinese shoe factory that produces shoes for Ivanka Trump clothing line have been arrested. Apparently, the Chinese want to keep on the good graces of Mr. Trump.

News Item Trump has now invited Dutrete to the White House, proving once again the Donald has not met a dictator he hasn't liked. Dutrete is probably going to be charged with crimes against humanity.

Mr Trump keeps saying the world looks at the United States as a loser. No, Mr Trump, the world looks on you as a loser.

The last comment goes to Mr. Trump's own psyche, he has never been accepted by the New York Elite. He has always felt he was considered a loser.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
News Item: Three labor investigators looking at the Chinese shoe factory that produces shoes for Ivanka Trump clothing line have been arrested. Apparently, the Chinese want to keep on the good graces of Mr. Trump.

I suspect it's more along the lines of the Chinese regularly arrest and 'disappear' labor activists, but it made the papers in the West this time because of the Trump connection.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
NPR is reporting the investigators were planning on sharing their findings with Ivanka. Personally, I hope she does get involved.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
NPR is reporting the investigators were planning on sharing their findings with Ivanka. Personally, I hope she does get involved.

Surely she's already "involved;" and surely she's already aware of what goes on in her own company.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Ivanka is about as reliable on progressive politics as her husband.

Trump is down on German cars because they are bringing too many models into the USA. Trump only likes European models if they agree to marry him. (as heard on HIGNFY)

[ 04. June 2017, 01:47: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
We watch the same shows, simon... I did like that line.

And Trump retweets news on the London attacks from the Drudge Report before tweeting himself... Not sure what to think.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Ivanka is utterly unreliable, the true daughter of her toadlike sire. And, I do not doubt, about as naturally blonde.
I can't manipulate the cut-and-paste functions very well on this device, but this link should work: to a cartoon SFW.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154916944943558&id=677763557
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
And Trump retweets news on the London attacks from the Drudge Report before tweeting himself... Not sure what to think.

As posted on another thread, think: cunning. He is mirroring what most of his base would do. It's a big mistake to think, as I have seen posited elsewhere, that it means he gets all his news from Fox or Drudge and not intelligence briefings.

Tweeting thus enables his base to see in him someone like themselves, rather than someone who is part of that nasty Washington elite spouting half-baked political talk.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the way I make sense of Trump is to see him as an extremely good con artist, and this fits right in with that.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Once again, the Happy Hour News Dump does not disappoint. (A lot of Trump-related bombshell stories seem to get broken between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm Eastern time, guaranteeing that they'll be discussed during the various U.S. news programs.) The Intercept apparently got hold of an NSA report stating that Russian military intelligence (GRU) conducted cyber-attacks against a voting software provider and several local election officials. That's a whole different level of interference than any of the hacking we've heard about so far.

quote:
Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials just days before last November’s presidential election, according to a highly classified intelligence report obtained by The Intercept.

<snip>

The report indicates that Russian hacking may have penetrated further into U.S. voting systems than was previously understood. It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document:

quote:
Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.

<snip>

The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

The NSA has confirmed the authenticity of the report, both directly to The Intercept and by having the leaker arrested.

One question that immediately leaps to mind is whether Donald Trump was briefed on this report, which is dated May 5, before he fired FBI director James Comey on May 9.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
I don't like this political satire we're living in. It seems too over-the-top.

quote:
How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

The real star of the day is Eric Trump, the president's second son and now the co-head of the Trump Organization, who has hosted this event for ten years on behalf of the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. He's done a ton of good: To date, he's directed more than $11 million there, the vast majority of it via this annual golf event. He has also helped raise another $5 million through events with other organizations.

The best part about all this, according to Eric Trump, is the charity's efficiency: Because he can get his family's golf course for free and have most of the other costs donated, virtually all the money contributed will go toward helping kids with cancer. "We get to use our assets 100% free of charge," Trump tells Forbes.

That's not the case. In reviewing filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, it's clear that the course wasn't free--that the Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament.

Additionally, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which has come under previous scrutiny for self-dealing and advancing the interests of its namesake rather than those of charity, apparently used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization.

For those having trouble keeping track at home, Trump Foundation = ostensible charity; Trump Organization = Donald Trump's business.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I don't like this political satire we're living in. It seems too over-the-top.

quote:
How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

The real star of the day is Eric Trump, the president's second son and now the co-head of the Trump Organization, who has hosted this event for ten years on behalf of the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. He's done a ton of good: To date, he's directed more than $11 million there, the vast majority of it via this annual golf event. He has also helped raise another $5 million through events with other organizations.

The best part about all this, according to Eric Trump, is the charity's efficiency: Because he can get his family's golf course for free and have most of the other costs donated, virtually all the money contributed will go toward helping kids with cancer. "We get to use our assets 100% free of charge," Trump tells Forbes.

That's not the case. In reviewing filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, it's clear that the course wasn't free--that the Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament.

Additionally, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which has come under previous scrutiny for self-dealing and advancing the interests of its namesake rather than those of charity, apparently used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization.

For those having trouble keeping track at home, Trump Foundation = ostensible charity; Trump Organization = Donald Trump's business.
And then there's another questionable use of charitable funds.

Yeah, it's too bad there's no money to help out with cancer treatments or heart surgeries for the poor sick kids at St. Jude's. But I'm sure they'll be cheered knowing that a bunch of wealthy white guys gotta play a lot of golf and purchase a giant gold portrait of Donald.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
And Trump retweets news on the London attacks from the Drudge Report before tweeting himself... Not sure what to think.

As posted on another thread, think: cunning. He is mirroring what most of his base would do. It's a big mistake to think, as I have seen posited elsewhere, that it means he gets all his news from Fox or Drudge and not intelligence briefings.

Tweeting thus enables his base to see in him someone like themselves, rather than someone who is part of that nasty Washington elite spouting half-baked political talk.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the way I make sense of Trump is to see him as an extremely good con artist, and this fits right in with that.

Thanks for this. It's a timely reminder.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
<primal scream time>

The press keeps saying that there's no evidence that the Cozy and Fancy Bears interfered with vote tallies. SO FUCKING WHAT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO!!!! If they really wanted to tip the election, they only had to screw up a few hundred Democratic voters' registration in certain counties in the blue wall and bingo, the Cheeto wins the Electoral College.

Politicians in the USA have known for ages that there's no need to mess with vote counts when you can control who gets to vote. That's the real voter fraud scandal, not bullshit anecdata about voter impersonation and duplicate names and dead voters.

To quote a former presidential candidate featured in one of my all-time favourite movies, "Russians don't take a dump without a plan, son."

<end primal scream>
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Is trumpy the cause of the disease, or is he merely the tip of the whitehead which was created by growing income equality, the corrupt alliance between big business and government, the stain of torture, wars for profit, lack of health and hope?

But will you pop the trumpy pimple, squeezing out the puss from the face of America? Or will you let him and his movement of falsehoods and ridiculousness continue to grow until he explodes in mixture of blood and pain, leaving a permanent acne scar on your nation? It doesn't take very long to destroy a civil society.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Here you go again, Orange One, when the one country that allows you to have a major base on their territory gets bullied, but its neighbors and you (typically) side with the bullies, don't be surprised if that country tells you to close the base within 90 days.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
For those who are interested, James Comey has released a "Statement for the Record" in advance of his Senate testimony tomorrow. It's very gripping reading, if you're the kind who's "gripped" by seven pages of dry, analytical descriptions of meetings and phone conversations.

It certainly reads like Trump was attempting to influence the course of an investigation into the actions of his associates.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I hope Comey has a good bodyguard, or three.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It certainly reads like Trump was attempting to influence the course of an investigation into the actions of his associates.

No doubt about it. Trump either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the implications of his attempts to influence. The contrast between Obama's behaviour and Trump's behaviour could not be more marked.

And of course every word of that summary can be checked against his memos written at the time. And a further thing. You only create that sort of memo if you have serious concerns about the integrity of the President.

It's a damning document. The questions he receives from Republicans will tell us a lot about the current levels of integrity within the GOP. The Democrats will have a field day.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
AIUI, Comey had a practice of writing memos about meetings. So did the previous FBI head. It's reportedly considered best practice.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AIUI, Comey had a practice of writing memos about meetings. So did the previous FBI head. It's reportedly considered best practice.

It is a best practice. Even if both parties have the best intentions, having a record of what happened can reduce confusion later.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Note, however, that in his letter to Congress (linked to by Crœsos above a few hours ago) Comey explicitly states:

quote:
I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past

 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
lB--

Sure. But these folks are spooks/spies, more or less, so they might find it wise *not* to write things down.

WH--

Hmmm. Haven't read that yet. IIRC, there was at least one specific news story, maybe a few weeks ago, that said what I just mentioned. So either they got it wrong, or I misunderstood.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Me and my lefty friends have already begun referring to tomorrow as "James Comey Day" as if it were a national holiday. Cocktails will be involved
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
If anyone wants to pursue the memo habit further:

"Comey’s Memos Were a Product of a Culture of Note-Keeping" (NYTimes; no firewall notice).

Seems like it might be a both/and situation. Comey did make an extra effort on the notes of his meeting(s) with T. But note-taking is a normal thing in the FBI and CIA, and encouraged.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Me and my lefty friends have already begun referring to tomorrow as "James Comey Day" as if it were a national holiday. Cocktails will be involved

Don't get too excited.

Fox News:
quote:
Comey’s blockbuster hearing could bolster Trump’s critics – and allies
I know y'all prefer WaPo but bear in mind how many people rely on Fox and that it's not all lying propaganda...

Comey's testimony might be significant, but Trump isn't going anywhere fast. I've linked before to articles discussing the unlikelihood of impeachment scenarios.

Again my experience with con artists tells me Trump is teflon - just look at how far he's got. Again: don't mistake cunning for stupidity. I think actual health problems are far more likely to stop him than any of this leading to him being removed from office ahead of time.

Over the past months there have been countless moments when liberals have thought "this is it" only to be disappointed. The continuous not-quite-scandals are wearing down the opposition while Congress quietly gets on with, say gutting the Dodd-Frank agreement. How much media coverage has that had this week? And how much outrage has there been?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I read this too, and wondered about it.

quote:
I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past
I'm wondering if he meant:
a. I used to create written records, but I never did it in the car seconds after the meeting; I usually did it when I got back to the office, maybe a few hours later;
b. I usually created written records, but not for conversations with a president;
c. I simply never created written records for conversations with anybody before (unlikely; as noted above there's a culture of that sort of thing).

I'm guessing it's a.

And really, wouldn't you do that too, if you'd just been handed an enormous hot potato? I'd be terrified of forgetting something during the drive home.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The continuous not-quite-scandals are wearing down the opposition while Congress quietly gets on with, say gutting the Dodd-Frank agreement. How much media coverage has that had this week? And how much outrage has there been?

I think it's important to keep pointing out that this is not normal and that what you call "not-quite-scandals", like the possibility that the President* (or those on his staff) is acting on behalf of a sometimes-hostile foreign power and used the powers of his office to try to quash an investigation into that question, or the fact that the President* is accepting money from foreign governments in a very non-transparent manner, or any number of other things, are actually "scandals". A "not-quite-scandal" might be the fact that some are maintaining the pretense that this is normal presidential behavior that no one should be too worried about.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm wondering if he meant:
a. I used to create written records, but I never did it in the car seconds after the meeting; I usually did it when I got back to the office, maybe a few hours later;
b. I usually created written records, but not for conversations with a president;
c. I simply never created written records for conversations with anybody before (unlikely; as noted above there's a culture of that sort of thing).

I'm guessing it's a.

And really, wouldn't you do that too, if you'd just been handed an enormous hot potato? I'd be terrified of forgetting something during the drive home.

I suspect it's also a little bit of d. I routinely create written records of conversations materially relevant to an ongoing investigation, but no prior presidential conversation I've had has fallen into that category.

[ 08. June 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Are you guys watching the Comey testimony? Gulp. 'Trump lied'.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Again my experience with con artists tells me Trump is teflon - just look at how far he's got. Again: don't mistake cunning for stupidity.

I think Trump has an unusual form of intelligence whereby he doesn't actively strategize but rather intuitively reacts to things in a way that is petty and childish but that has succeeded in both business and politics to get results that he wants (not all the time, but enough of the time). Bullies learn their habits because they work for them. Now, Trump may not get any major laws passed, he may severely damage America's standing in the world, he may even get us all killed - but he'll still be adored by the people propping him up, and I think that adulation is all that matters to him.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That pretty much describes a con artist for me.

Warning: don't watch the Comey testimony. You'll get sucked in and never come out.

Advice: watch it for hints on how to perform on the stand.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That pretty much describes a con artist for me.

Warning: don't watch the Comey testimony. You'll get sucked in and never come out.

Advice: watch it for hints on how to perform on the stand.

I'm listening to it on the radio while I clean house. As I posted in Hell, the two seem to go together.

He does very well on the stand.

sabine
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I think we may have finally struck an honest man. He says stuff that on the face of it is damaging to him. At least in the court of public opinion. Go, Comey!
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you guys watching the Comey testimony? Gulp. 'Trump lied'.

Actually, for me the best part was Trump spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders telling the press: "I can say definitively the president is not a liar." This statement in itself is demonstrably false.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I would really like to know what McCain was on about. He sounded at times like he didn't know where he was
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I listened to Comey on NPR. (They or another outlet will probably have a transcript available later.)

A lawyer (not sure if T's personal one, or the White House counsel) is expected to make a statement sometime soon.

Based just on the radio, and not seeing his face nor behavior, I think Comey did a great job. I haven't forgiven him for the disparity in handling allegations re Hillary and T, particularly putting out info just before the election. But it's *possible* that he really thought he was being correct and fair.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the closed-door meeting this afternoon!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I would really like to know what McCain was on about. He sounded at times like he didn't know where he was

Yup. That's my Senator -- hopefully not for much longer.

(You know that anyone who would have Sarah Palin as a running mate has got to be a bit dotty.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Yup. That's my Senator -- hopefully not for much longer.

(You know that anyone who would have Sarah Palin as a running mate has got to be a bit dotty.)

Fairly recently he's been sounding quite statesmanlike (or so it seems from this distance), but today he just sounded like a confused old man.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I do not envy Comey. What a way to go down in history. This will be the first line in his obituary.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do not envy Comey. What a way to go down in history. This will be the first line in his obituary.

Second. I suspect the first line will be something about how he tilted the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Transcript of today's Comey hearing in Congress (Washington Post).

(I simply searched the Web on "Comey Congress transcript". Many sources have a version. Audio and video are available elsewhere. You might try NPR.org or CNN.com.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I think the first line of his obituary will be something about what a ginormous douche he was, and how he epitomized everything that is wrong with DC.

How completely could his political motivations and the idiocy of the "overseers" have been laid bare?

None more than they were...

If you are tired of Trump "winning", I suggest you buckle up...
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
how he epitomized everything that is wrong with DC

Yeah, all that truth telling. It's a shit isn't it? SAD.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's also been commentary about how familiar his concerns sound, to women. Not wanting to be alone with the boss. Being made uncomfortable by his innuendoes. The only thing that is missing is the pussy grope.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The continuous not-quite-scandals are wearing down the opposition while Congress quietly gets on with, say gutting the Dodd-Frank agreement. How much media coverage has that had this week? And how much outrage has there been?

I think it's important to keep pointing out that this is not normal and that what you call "not-quite-scandals"
Sorry, missed this earlier.

They are "not-quite-scandals" not in the sense that they aren't scandalous, but that they have consistently failed to produce the smoking gun which critics seem to think they will.

France Info was virtually giving the impression Trump would be impeached by, well, now, following Comey's testimony. It's been the same with, well, we've basically forgotten all the others, there have been so many incidents like this. In that sense they have become normal. We can't even remember what the presidency looked like before this.

You can only have your expectations defeated so many times.

When the smoking gun repeatedly doesn't appear, the world ends up accepting the process as normal and opening the popcorn for the latest instalment in reality TV from the White House instead of following the progress of boring but impactful little laws in Congress. I think this is probably part of the administration's strategy.

As I also said, Trump appears to be made of teflon.

The most damning thing so far for him in the wake of all this is at the time of writing, he hasn't tweeted since before the hearing, on June 7. Either because his lawyer was standing over him making dire threats during the hearing or, as I have repeatedly argued here, because he is not stupid (firing off random tweets) but cunning (merely giving the impression of doing so). But again, that's not a smoking gun.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lB--

Sure. But these folks are spooks/spies, more or less, so they might find it wise *not* to write things down.

--


Yeah, but they are primarily lawyers working for the Government. Both lawyers and government employees know how important a paper trail is. Idiots with gilded loos do not.

Presently eating popcorn while watching the whole Trump thing unfold. If I was a betting man, my money would be on recordings of the relevant meetings being flushed down the lav... Except they are all digital these days... Can you post audio recordings on Instagram?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Idiots with gilded loos do not.

Trump is not an idiot. The last thing that suits him is a paper trail record, because his entire mindest is one in which the truth is infinitely flexible.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
This closing line from a (paywalled) article I read on Comey's testimony today echoed my thoughts:
quote:
Ultimately, we are left to grapple with the same question Trump’s campaign and presidency have provoked virtually every day. What on earth does it take to bring this man down?


[ 09. June 2017, 08:03: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The Democrats winning a majority in Congress?

The problem as far as I can see it is that the opposition is fixated on tripping up Trump rather than on planning for elections. At least that's what the media give one to believe.

Exposing a con artist is a long, painstaking, intimidating, and exhausting process; I speak from experience. The con artist will always find a way of turning just about anything you try to use against them to their advantage. It really is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. And make no mistake, Trump is really good at doing this.

Trump's downfall will come, and it's an end worth pursuing, but it shouldn't be mixed up with trying to remove the Republicans, or indeed him, from power.

[ 09. June 2017, 08:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The problem as far as I can see it is that the opposition is fixated on tripping up Trump rather than on planning for elections. At least that's what the media give one to believe.

Intrestingly enough a colleague and I had the same conversation.

I hope, behind the scenes, wheels are turning. I guess they have some time. But it would be nice to see some forward-looking rather than just waiting for the (inevitable?) fall. But then I'm not a resident, just an interested observer.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's also been commentary about how familiar his concerns sound, to women. Not wanting to be alone with the boss. Being made uncomfortable by his innuendoes. The only thing that is missing is the pussy grope.

Now **that** would be newsworthy! [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Yes, and I've just been wondering how it's possible that, in the five and a half months since the yam's inauguration, he's managed not to be accused of this behavior even once.

Perhaps it WAS "just" all (locker room) talk, imagined by 44.5 as "impressive" to his young male interviewer.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Democrats winning a majority in Congress?

The problem as far as I can see it is that the opposition is fixated on tripping up Trump rather than on planning for elections.

These aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, "tripping up Trump" and forcing congressional Republicans to rush to his defense seems a pretty good way to link congressional Republicans with an historically unpopular president in the minds of the public. In other words, "tripping up Trump" is an electoral strategy.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Yes, and I've just been wondering how it's possible that, in the five and a half months since the yam's inauguration, he's managed not to be accused of this behavior even once.

Perhaps it WAS "just" all (locker room) talk, imagined by 44.5 as "impressive" to his young male interviewer.

Well of course he is indisputably a liar. But we must also remember that the pussy-grabbing boast took place when he was 60 -- ten years ago. Time is not a lecherous boor's friend; I am sure Lyin' Don has other, larger issues now to occupy his mind. Comey is 6 foot 8 and a trained FBI man -- you would have to be crazy to grope his crotch.

As to the teflon. I still say that except for the most deep-dyed Trumpistas, most Americans are patriots. If Li'l Donny damages the nation enough, visibly enough, there will be a turn. He will go too far even for them. He is proven out of his own mouth, to care only for himself; the good of the nation, the dangers from Russia, the welfare of the people, all these are opaque to him and without meaning. But he will, at last, go too far.

I am afraid this will call for loss of life, however. And it'll have to be the right lives that he carelessly loses. Not black people, not women or children, not Syrians or citizens of Qatar or whatever, not even the sweat and blood of the US Army. The sin has to be expiated with blood. The blood of older white men.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Trump and his 'team' are quite skilled, in a bizarre sort of way, at creating alternative narratives and defending them stoutly. Even when they are stupid. Even his lawyer got into the game over Comey. Comey is now a leaker. Well, of course he isn't. Note that the potential defence of libeller would be available, but unfortunately Comey is telling the truth. Which I'm sure any White House recordings will confirm. So therefore Comey has to be a leaker.

Analogous tactics were of course used over Sadiq Khan.

It's all rather 1984. If Trump says 2+2=5, well that's just an alternative fact. To be enforced any way he can get away with it. After all, his loyal supporters are much happier to parrot than check.

I think Croesos is right though. It is a good tactic to keep on attacking his veracity and general unpleasantness. His support in the polls continues to decline as more and more people wise up to his true nature and general incompetence.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Comey is 6 foot 8 and a trained FBI man -- you would have to be crazy to grope his crotch.

To paraphrase Mae West in the film Myra Breckenridge: "Never mind the six feet. Let's talk about the eight inches."
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Eek!]

Miss Amanda, I think you ought to go and get your wrap....

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
It's being dry cleaned -- some sort of stain got on it somehow. [Confused]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Let me guess -- it's a blue one.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Well, it's definitely not orange. I can tell you that much in open session. [Biased]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
*where is the fan emoticon!*

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Comey is now a leaker. Well, of course he isn't.

I may be wrong, but couldn't he getting a friend to give details to the press be considered "leaking"? Personally, I am all for leaking if people believe government is overstepping it's bounds...but I think it is still leaking.

quote:
His support in the polls continues to decline as more and more people wise up to his true nature and general incompetence.
Good point. But I suppose I'd like to see some acknowledgement on the other side that their policies are leaving people behind. Maybe I've missed it, my fault. Not as much as the Orange Menace's, to be sure, but people are still struggling. And it seemed to me neither side particularly cares. Though Trump cares even less.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I may be wrong, but couldn't he getting a friend to give details to the press be considered "leaking"? Personally, I am all for leaking if people believe government is overstepping it's bounds...but I think it is still leaking.

It would be leaking if he included anything classified. Giving his own, non-classified account of what happened doesn't fit this.
The Cheeto administration wants to have things both ways. To persecute people for leaking information whilst claiming they are lying.
prior to November last, it would have made one's head spin.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
The problem as far as I can see it is that the opposition is fixated on tripping up Trump rather than on planning for elections. At least that's what the media give one to believe.
I am a constituent in the 5th Congressional District of Washington State which is represented by Republican Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rogers. She is the highest-ranking Republican woman in Congress at this time.

I can assure you we are actively working for her defeat this next go around. She is refusing to participate in town hall meetings because she is not listening to voters. She voted for to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

People are relying on this act for health care coverage. You try to take away something that people need, things are getting ugly.

At this stage, it is estimated the Republicans can lose up to 40 seats in the next election Democrats only need 23 seats in order to gain the House

The Democrats only need three seats to flip for the Senate. Historically four seats will likely flip against the administration.

All this is to say while the Democrats are working the Trump card for all it's got, it is not the only reason Congress will be going blue.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
All this is to say while the Democrats are working the Trump card for all it's got, it is not the only reason Congress will be going blue.

Also because the Congressional Republicans will be holding their breath, hoping to retain not only their hold on Congress, but the very existence of their party?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Comey is guilty of snitching on his former boss, but that's not illegal leaking under US law. And you can be 100% sure that Comey will have checked out any legal exposure in advance.

No, this is just alternative narrative game playing by Trump. Who is now accusing Comey of lying and threatening to produce tapes 'soon'. Ha bloody Ha. 'Soon' in Trump speak is just a news cycle device and normally means sometime never.

He's just an asshole who happens to be POTUS. Not too difficult to see through his stupid games.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I would not be surprised if he offered a "doctored" set of tapes that corroborate his version of the encounters.

If he were indeed so stupid, I would hope that Comey would have at his disposal an army of technically savvy sympathizers to come to his aid to expose the fraud.

That would be the end of the Orange One -- and good riddance!
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Comey is guilty of snitching on his former boss, but that's not illegal leaking under US law. And you can be 100% sure that Comey will have checked out any legal exposure in advance.

No, this is just alternative narrative game playing by Trump. Who is now accusing Comey of lying and threatening to produce tapes 'soon'. Ha bloody Ha. 'Soon' in Trump speak is just a news cycle device and normally means sometime never.

He's just an asshole who happens to be POTUS. Not too difficult to see through his stupid games.

Stupid game? Maybe...but it was effective in moving Comey...

There are no tapes.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What's that you say, romanlion? No tapes? You mean T-boy lied to us?

As to the future of the GOP, they have irrevocably tied themselves to the king. When it is revealed that he has no clothes they'll be standing right there beside him, bare-assed. The party may or may not survive in name, but it's dead, just shambling around like a zombie.

The church in the US got into bed with the pussygroper as well, and they're not going to recover in my lifetime.

[ 10. June 2017, 14:05: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
What is it with these people? What drives them into bed with pussygropers, and so forth?

Over here, we have our revered Prime Minister getting into bed, in order to 'govern', with mediaeval types who believe the world was created 6021 years ago, in 4004BC!

Truly, the lunatics have taken over the asylum...

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Comey is guilty of snitching on his former boss, but that's not illegal leaking under US law. And you can be 100% sure that Comey will have checked out any legal exposure in advance.

Yes. At worst it is "not loyal"-- something Comey has already alerted the Orange One he prioritizes lower than honesty. But for Trump loyalty is the greatest good, and since he has clearly confused being POTUS with being a medevil monarch, he assumes that disloyalty to the crown is a capital offense.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ha bloody Ha.

Thank you, Barnabas. This is my new mantra when it comes to all things Trump or the Freedom Caucus.
[Big Grin]

sabine
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Meh. My PTSD has come roaring back and I jump three feet when anybody speaks to me. Explained to my husband why I'm being so twitchy (it's easy to avoid the news when you spend all your time in Little Vietnam). He kindly decided that the way to solve my twitchiness was to talk shit until I was so irritated with him I would forget about Trump!

We would have had a rip roaring fight except I caught the twinkle in his eye and confronted him with it. He admitted his tactics.

The sucky thing is, it worked.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

There are no tapes.

You don't know that for sure. Who knows what arrangements if any are made to record what the present POTUS and his visitors discuss?

Maybe there is another "Alexander Butterfield" moment in our future? Or maybe Trump is just a lying toad? Or maybe Comey is a nutjob?

In advance of further information, ISTM that the nutjob resides (part time anyway)at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I'm less interested than others about the potential existence of tapes. If they do exist, I'm highly dubious we'll get an unedited version that either confirms or denies Comey's testimony. Possibly we'll get some spliced together version, or something like the infamous Watergate "gaps" which Donald thinks he can use to support his version of truth. More likely he's just playing with us. The man is a troll.

If this were a jury trial, I'd be sitting back with the popcorn, pretty darn sure which witness would win the he said/he said stand-off. But played out in front of Congress in an impeachment trial? Much less certain.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The man is a troll.

Yes indeed. We'd kick him off the Ship in a heartbeat.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The man is a troll.

Yes indeed. We'd kick him off the Ship in a heartbeat.
Just for starters, he'd have problems with Commandments 1,2,3, and 5 -- especially 1.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re tapes:

T reportedly records conversations in Trump Towers. (In his residence, I presume...) If that's true, he might well continue the habit in the White House.

And microphones are a lot easier to hide than in Nixon's day, and they don't have to have a wired connection.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Comey and leaking:

Of course, it was leaking. I don't know if it was illegal. Ethically, it was probably the right thing to do.

As to whether Comey checked out his legal exposure first, I'm not sure. From what he said, it seems like he was in turmoil, and scared, and maybe even panicking. Any sensible person who wasn't a diehard T supporter would've been. That's why the immediate memo-writing in his car, and the realization that woke him in the night.

He may well have been covering his own a**, as much as he was trying to get an investigation going. And that's probably why he was so forthright in his testimony--better to admit it, than to have someone dig it up.

[ 11. June 2017, 04:22: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Comey is guilty of snitching on his former boss, but that's not illegal leaking under US law. And you can be 100% sure that Comey will have checked out any legal exposure in advance.

I didn't mention illegality...I wrote "leaking". In my view, he did leak. Was it right? Of course, in my mind. But it was a leak...he didn't come out and say it, he gave it to someone who gave it to the press.

edit: thanks for the agreement GK - good to know I'm not completely mad; or if I am you are with me. [Big Grin]

[ 11. June 2017, 04:25: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I can assure you we are actively working for her defeat this next go around. She is refusing to participate in town hall meetings because she is not listening to voters. She voted for to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

People are relying on this act for health care coverage. You try to take away something that people need, things are getting ugly.

Thanks for this. It does give one hope.

I freely admit I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to the left of most, if not all, Americans. And I try not to impose my socialist views on another country, where the very thought of free healthcare for all sends shivers down many spines which confuses me to this day. Do you think the Democrats need to change any policies, as per Bernie's latest speech? Or do you think they, as they are, generally gel with enough of the American populace as they are?

Forgive me if I'm overstepping my mark as an outsider, but your country is the most powerful in the world and your CiC and government has some impact on what happens around the world. I just recall seeing Hillary veer to the left and disown policies she previously supported (the Pacific Free Trade agreement, for instance) during the selection process. Is that lurch to the left continuing? Is it beneficial / needed? Or is a centrist mentality more likely to appeal?

I may have misunderstod the level of hatred towards Hillary, but was Trump's election in any way a dismissal of where the Democrats were and the policies they pursued (and those they forgot?)? What caused people to stay at home in large numbers? I'm trying to make sense, esp. given Corbyn's good performance, of where progressive parties need to be now.

[ 11. June 2017, 04:35: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Comey wasn't leaking, he was whistleblowing [Smile]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
edit: thanks for the agreement GK - good to know I'm not completely mad; or if I am you are with me. [Big Grin]

Less crowded, where we're sitting. [Biased]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
A leak, by definition, involves secret information. And secret, in government terms, is not merely "stuff I didn't want you to know". It will be items of a classified nature.
So far as I am aware, nothing that Cheeto has whined about, with Comey or his staff, qualifies as such.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I would think a private convo with the president might be classified, especially when T made such a big thing of kicking everyone else out of the room. And the notes were work product--about his work, and done while he still had his job. He said that, well, when he gave them to his friend, he was a private citizen, so it should be ok. I think "that dog won't hunt", to borrow a phrase.

Not that I think he should be punished, but there may be legit grounds to do so.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Possibly some light relief for the UK:
quote:
Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming. The US president said he did not want to come if there were large-scale protests and his remarks in effect put the visit on hold for some time.
From the Guardian, link.

He might have to wait for rather a long time, then. In addition, isn't this another sign of his narcissism which would be dealt a blow with masses of non-adoring crowds? - Very good riddance, I'd say!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, you have had a fortunate escape. Lucky you!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed.

Is it a sign of 'progress' into his tiny mind that The Great Pussygrabbin' Yam is thinking people might just not want him?

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Do you think the Democrats need to change any policies, as per Bernie's latest speech?

I just recall seeing Hillary veer to the left and disown policies she previously supported (the Pacific Free Trade agreement, for instance) during the selection process. Is that lurch to the left continuing?

...the level of hatred towards Hillary, but was Trump's election in any way a dismissal of where the Democrats were and the policies they pursued (and those they forgot?)? What caused people to stay at home in large numbers? [/QB]

I can't claim to have answers. Lots of people disliked Hillary, for lots of reasons. She swung left because of Bernie not because of change in belief. (Would she has re-endorsed TPP after election? Unknown) MOST (not all) of the people I talk to voted Trump disliking him but what the heck he was a fresh voice even if he talked nonsense sometimes. Some are apologetic, some still waiting to see if he does good but still not wanting Hillary. (I voted Bernie so I'm out of the game.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I would think a private convo with the president might be classified, especially when T made such a big thing of kicking everyone else out of the room.

Again. private=/= classified.
quote:

And the notes were work product--about his work, and done while he still had his job.

Not everything an intelligence agency is classified. Some things that are marked classified would not stand in a court. INAL, but the standard is not an arbitrary one.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Trump’s too scared to come to the UK. Who says protest doesn’t work?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yah Boo! Cowardy, cowardy, orange-coloured custard!

What a pathetic fuckwit he is. Nearly as bad as our own revered 'prime minister'.....

IJ
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Possibly some light relief for the UK:
quote:
Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming. The US president said he did not want to come if there were large-scale protests and his remarks in effect put the visit on hold for some time.
From the Guardian, link.

He might have to wait for rather a long time, then. In addition, isn't this another sign of his narcissism which would be dealt a blow with masses of non-adoring crowds? - Very good riddance, I'd say!

Poor, sensitive man.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I see the House Committee have asked the White House to release tapes - if there are any!

Leaking is one of those muddy terms. It covers unauthorised release of classified information, which is illegal, unauthorised release of non-classified but embarrassing information, which may be a dismissable offence, but not prosecutable, or simply breaking a confidence for the sake of embarrassment.

In Trumpspeak, calling Comey a leaker means he should be subject to legal investigation and prosecution if guilty of illegal disclosure. I guess the legal issue is whether all private conversations with the President are by their very nature classified.

Comey's note for the record of his conversations with the President was perfectly legal. Revealing the contents of these notes in his response, under oath, to a House Investigation is highly unlikely to be illegal.

Apparently Sessions is up shortly. Oh what fun that will be.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In Trumpspeak, calling Comey a leaker means he should be subject to legal investigation and prosecution if guilty of illegal disclosure. I guess the legal issue is whether all private conversations with the President are by their very nature classified.

They are not. Nor were Comey's memos classified. On the other hand there is a question of "executive privilege", a somewhat vague legal doctrine most often used by presidents to block subordinates from testifying when such testimony would be embarrassing/incriminating. It doesn't apply here for two reasons. First, Trump essentially waived any privilege when he described the conversations and their content ("While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, . . . ") in a publicly released letter. Second, the time to assert executive privilege is before the testimony is offered.

On the question of tapes, I see three possibilities. They are, in what I view as order of descending likelihood:


Those are the only possibilities I can think of that make sense.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Sense! [Killing me] As if that applies to The Orange One.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Fourth scenario - the tapes exist but are missing 18½ minutes.
[Biased]

(For those too young to remember, or who live elsewhere and didn't follow the U.S. scandals of the 70s, the Watergate tapes had a 18½ minute gap.)
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I read today that: Delta Airlines and Bank of America pulls sponsorship from Julius Caesar

The play casts Caesar as a Trump-like character in an American political setting. It ends with Trump being stabbed in the rotunda by his colleagues. "Stabbed in the Rotunda" was a line from Canadian Comic Duo Wayne & Shuster, who's comedy I enjoyed as a child. If you want to enjoy their comedy as a child, drink three large whiskeys and search youtube for "Rinse the Blood Off My Toga". Actually, do the search before you drink the whiskey.

Personally, I think it is terrible to compare Trump to the great Romans of the past. I reckon if you are going to put Trump into a play, go for something like Bugsy Malone. The guy might think he is important or loved or that he will be fondly remembered in the future. We can't let him think that. It would be a cruel deception.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Croesos

Thanks, Shipmate, very helpful. I knew it was something like that but wasn't sure just how much executive privilege muddied the waters.

Have you seen this story?

As a truthteller about Trump's pressurising, Comey is looking pretty good right now.

BTW, I caught a bit of a Fox "News" show and they are spinning, spinning, spinning the leak accusation for all it is worth. This is now a world of "alternative facts".

[ 12. June 2017, 10:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Mindboggling. Thanks for the link!

However..., with Weird No. 45, mindbogglingness is the everyday rule. At least, it keeps our own minds lean and fit and agile I suppose.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I feel that my mind is fit enough. Do you remember the good old days (a year ago!) when you did not know who the Attorney General was? Or the Secretary of Education? I doubt I could name those persons if they came up and bit me. We could simply not know, because all the departments and governance were in the hands of competement people. Now, an unnatural vigilance has been forced upon us; we have to defend our rights at every turn.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
I'm ashamed to say that I'm one of those bad immigrants who pays more attention to the politics in the old country than the new one. I can recognize my MP and my MLA, I was privileged to meet our Justice Minister, but I probably recognize more members of Congress than members of Parliament. [Hot and Hormonal]

I did have a lot of fun today asking all my colleagues what they would think if the boss called them in for a private meeting and started off by asking if they liked their job [Eek!] [Ultra confused] [Paranoid] ... and "hoped" you'd do something ... Sorry, Senator Risch, that dog won't hunt.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm ashamed to say that I'm one of those bad immigrants who pays more attention to the politics in the old country than the new one. I can recognize my MP and my MLA, I was privileged to meet our Justice Minister, but I probably recognize more members of Congress than members of Parliament. [Hot and Hormonal]

I did have a lot of fun today asking all my colleagues what they would think if the boss called them in for a private meeting and started off by asking if they liked their job [Eek!] [Ultra confused] [Paranoid] ... and "hoped" you'd do something ... Sorry, Senator Risch, that dog won't hunt.

Are you the boss, Soror magna [Big Grin]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I feel that my mind is fit enough. Do you remember the good old days (a year ago!) when you did not know who the Attorney General was? Or the Secretary of Education? I doubt I could name those persons if they came up and bit me. We could simply not know, because all the departments and governance were in the hands of competement people. Now, an unnatural vigilance has been forced upon us; we have to defend our rights at every turn.

Yes.... it's almost painful to remember, isn't it?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
It's becoming more and more obvious that T is like an aging, demented emperor, who must be placated, lest he take issue with your head:

"Trump makes bizarre claims at press event as Cabinet members take turns praising him" (CNBC).

Not saying he'll actually kill an individual, though I don't think it's impossible that he'd order someone to do it.. But sending the military or dropping a nuke, when he's upset, bored, lonely, or feeling disrespected...

[Help]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Love the skit by Charles Schumer - they couldn't keep straight faces for long.

Mind you, plenty of the Trump lot had wry smiles [Killing me]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Love the skit by Charles Schumer - they couldn't keep straight faces for long.

But I kind of wish he hadn't done it. FauxNews is now spending loads of time talking about how Shumer is "wasting taxpayer money" putting out such things and how he should be doing his job, not playing around.

This, of course, is just a way for FN to distract from the obscenity that was the actual meeting...but it has a point. Democrats really need to stop behaving like children on a playground and instead behave like mature adults. The Trump meeting was damaging to Trump on its own. It did not need Shumer to push it over the edge. Instead, because he couldn't resist childish taunting, Shumer's video is now serving as a distraction from the Trump video. This is how Democrats are repeatedly stumbling over their own feet when dealing with Trump. They keep going for the laugh to get PR coverage for themselves, rather than deal with the serious issues posed.

This is what disgusts me about politicians, regardless of party affiliation--they are just playing a game. The whole lot of them need to grow up and be mature adults. I am tired of being ruled by children whose main ambition is to see how many wedgies they can give to the members of the opposition party.

My suggestion to the Dems: Stop trying for the laugh. Leave comedy to the comedians and keep the focus serious on just how bad Trump is for the country. Keep a serious focus on his multiple conflicts of interest, including his undisclosed sources of income. Keep a serious focus on the distressing number of ties his appointees have with Russia. Keep a serious focus on the detriment he is doing to our alliances across the world. Keep a serious focus on how he is applying improper influence on the investigations.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Love the skit by Charles Schumer - they couldn't keep straight faces for long.

But I kind of wish he hadn't done it. FauxNews is now spending loads of time talking about how Shumer is "wasting taxpayer money" putting out such things and how he should be doing his job, not playing around.
I disagree. When confronted with a fundamentally ridiculous situation ridicule is perfectly valid response. It can also highlight how fundamentally abnormal the whole situation is. Demanding uniform, dead-faced, humorless seriousness can be counterproductive in its own way.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
If they didn't laugh they'd cry.

They have every right to laugh and to point out his egotistic narcissism as they do so.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Meanwhile Sessions is in Session. No smoking gun.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Has The Great Orange Saviour Of The Universe built that Wall yet? Or established the ban on brown people aka Muslims?

No?

Tch...he's nearly as bad as that Obama feller. Whatever happened to the Muslim Caliphate?

IJ
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Demanding uniform, dead-faced, humorless seriousness can be counterproductive in its own way.

I suppose that is true. But (and this may just be based on the particular corner of the World Wide Echo Chamber I have been in of late) I have seen far more discussion about whether it was appropriate for Shumer to do what he did than I have seen discussion about whether it was appropriate for the Cabinet members to boot-lick like they did. From that perspective, it feels to me like Shumer actually helped get them off the hook by making himself the story rather than them. I find that to be counterproductive.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
It seems like every time we get a new revelation in this story it seems a lot more invasive than the previous iteration:

quote:
Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

I think we're fast approaching the point where an out-of-hand assumption that vote totals weren't directly affected by Russian cyberattacks is no longer a completely comfortable one.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
As the vote totals. so far as we know, continue to show Clinton the winner of the popular vote, I wonder if what we really need to know is whether the electoral college outcome was affected by these invasions.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ohher--

Yes.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Meanwhile Sessions is in Session. No smoking gun.

The easiest test to tell if someone is lying is to compare what they say to the truth. Unfortunately this method requires you to already know the truth beforehand. And we still don't know the truth about all these shenanigans.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Planet America showed some of the pro-Trump ads airing on American TV. One of the ads showed Kathy Griffin holding up that papier-mache Trump head. They are going to be showing that one for years. [Waterworks]

Hedgehog, I reckon you're not as right with Schumer's faux meeting, but you're spot on if you are talking about Kathy Griffin & Co.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Demanding uniform, dead-faced, humorless seriousness can be counterproductive in its own way.

I suppose that is true. But (and this may just be based on the particular corner of the World Wide Echo Chamber I have been in of late) I have seen far more discussion about whether it was appropriate for Shumer to do what he did than I have seen discussion about whether it was appropriate for the Cabinet members to boot-lick like they did. From that perspective, it feels to me like Shumer actually helped get them off the hook by making himself the story rather than them. I find that to be counterproductive.
Not here in the U.K. - I've seen and heard nothing but derision for the wobbly orange one, in RL and online. So insecure he needs constant praise. This is bad for six year olds, never mind ancient presidents [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sessions didn't impress me very much as a witness. Pretty evasive, not much disguised by the bluster. Trump's tweet was just silly.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Most of Trump's tweets are silly.

One waits now in expectation of profound thoughts (not) on the tower block fire in London, and the shooting of Republicans in Virginia.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Quick surreptitious check of fire inspections on own property first?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
A more significant development?

Donald Trump himself is under direct investigation for obstruction of justice by the special counsel's office.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A more significant development?

Donald Trump himself is under direct investigation for obstruction of justice by the special counsel's office.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
More cluelessness:

"Trump told the mayor of a disappearing island not to worry about sea-level rise — these photos show how grave the situation has become" (Business Insider).

The island is in bad shape--though I don't know how much is attributable to *this* round of climate change. The water's been swallowing it up since the 1800s.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A more significant development?

Donald Trump himself is under direct investigation for obstruction of justice by the special counsel's office.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
He'll fire Mueller next.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Boogie--

He's been considering it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
What do they call it, a kleptocracy?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A more significant development?

Donald Trump himself is under direct investigation for obstruction of justice by the special counsel's office.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
I guess this answers the question of what you get the man who has everything for his birthday.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
More cluelessness:

"Trump told the mayor of a disappearing island not to worry about sea-level rise — these photos show how grave the situation has become" (Business Insider).

The island is in bad shape--though I don't know how much is attributable to *this* round of climate change. The water's been swallowing it up since the 1800s.

A King Canute denier.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have been to Tangier Island. I would not buy real estate there on a bet; it is -barely- above sea level. High tides already flood many of the roads twice a day, and it is inaccessible in winter. One good hurricane coming up the Chesapeake Bay will wipe the place out, like wiping jam off your cheek. Crooked Don's comments were of course totally unhelpful. But there is nothing he, nor anyone else can do about Tangier. The mayor was asking for a miracle. Mother Nature has this one, and it's not going to be pretty.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The link indicates the islanders are getting what they voted for.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's a lot of that going around lately.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
And not just in the US of A...

[Disappointed]

Meanwhile, at least The Land Of Government By Headless Chickens (TLOGBHC - pronounced Togbitch - the L is silent), formerly known as the United Kingdom, is temporarily free from the threat of a Visitation by The Odious Orange Ozymandias.

TOOO would be faced (or behinded) by too many people for His Bigly Magnificence to cope with.

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's becoming more and more obvious that T is like an aging, demented emperor, who must be placated, lest he take issue with your head:

"Trump makes bizarre claims at press event as Cabinet members take turns praising him" (CNBC).

Not saying he'll actually kill an individual, though I don't think it's impossible that he'd order someone to do it.. But sending the military or dropping a nuke, when he's upset, bored, lonely, or feeling disrespected...

[Help]

Had a thought about this: Praise of the boss/department head happens in bad corporate environments. It's an extension of the thing where the boss gives an indication of what s/he wants and then everyone praises the idea to the sky.

On a related matter, it looks like Trump might be threatening Rosenstein in his latest tweet. I love twitter.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
FYI: ABC's "20/20" news magazine show is doing a special on Watergate tonight (6/16/17). There's related material here. I think the full show will be available there, eventually, and someone will probably put it on YouTube.

Relevant because of parallels with the current situation.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's becoming more and more obvious that T is like an aging, demented emperor, who must be placated, lest he take issue with your head:

"Trump makes bizarre claims at press event as Cabinet members take turns praising him" (CNBC).

Not saying he'll actually kill an individual, though I don't think it's impossible that he'd order someone to do it.. But sending the military or dropping a nuke, when he's upset, bored, lonely, or feeling disrespected...

[Help]

Had a thought about this: Praise of the boss/department head happens in bad corporate environments. It's an extension of the thing where the boss gives an indication of what s/he wants and then everyone praises the idea to the skies
A very good thought. It's invariably a sign that some pretty extreme abuse of power is going on.

I think we have to be realistic about this. Some abuse of power by the powerful is normal. Speaking the truth to power is generally a risky business. I remember being taught this truth early in my public service career.

"If you tell a senior officer is wrong and you are wrong, you're likely to get marks for courage and independent thinking. But if you tell them they are wrong and they are wrong, don't expect to be forgiven any time soon."

Power and status can corrupt people by playing on vanity and self importance. But Trump was vain and self important before he became POTUS. Amongst other faults.

I get the feeling he is pretty much incorrigible now. And increasingly deluded. That can be very dangerous.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
Some of his supporters are apparently deluded, also. I just heard a woman being interviewed on the TV telling all of us that Trump has the respect of the world, which has not been the case for a long time. It makes me wonder about her (and others like her) thought processes.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Trump has never, in his entire career, had the respect of anyone outside of the United States. He has always been considered at best to be a laughingstock but more often a fraud, fortunate not to have shared a jail cell with Martha Stewart and Jared Kushner's dad.

America is in dire need of a tall poppy syndrome. It seems like its a country full of wealth fetishists.

Re Georgia Special Election: I think I'm right in saying that the previous incumbent had a majority of about 23%, whereas the current Republican seems to have hung on to the seat by a majority of about 1.3%. (I can't find a report of the swing, which is weird, but I'm no google wizard). To me, that works out to be something like a 22% swing away from the Republicans in a red state.

Why are the Democrats casting this as a loss, requiring soul-searching? Do they require a national swing of more than 20% to wrest away control of Congress?

Why aren't Democrats dancing in the streets over this result? They put their big guns up and they got a great result.

The answer, I expect, is that there was a failure in expectation management. But are Americans interested in progressive politics really so gullible that they think they might pick up a seat requiring more than a 20% swing?

Madness.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

Why are the Democrats casting this as a loss, requiring soul-searching? Do they require a national swing of more than 20% to wrest away control of Congress?

I suspect it's connected to the fact that the Dems spent something like 5 times the moolah the Repugs did on this, The Most Expensive Race Ever, or so it's reported.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I just watched PBS Newshour for 21 June. Looks like the Dems are not casting this as a loss, as is right and proper. My faith in American politics is restored.

Sorry. The whole healthcare thing upsets me, despite my bravado in the other thread. I am Koyaanisqatsi .

WHEN WILL THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE COME TO BE?

[Waterworks]

I realise that I might be unravelling a bit. No posting for 12 hours for this little black duck.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
From the Guardian -

"Donald Trump has explained he wouldn’t want a poor person touching the economy. He told a crowd in Iowa that he made “very rich person” Wilbur Ross his commerce secretary and Gary Cohn from Goldman Sachs his economic adviser “because that’s the kind of thinking we want”. Cohn “went from massive pay days to peanuts” to join Team Trump, said the president. “I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don’t want a poor person. Does that make sense?”

No sense at all to me.

How many 'peanuts' will these two be paid?

When will poor trump supporters realise he never has been, and never will be, on their side?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

No sense at all to me.

How many 'peanuts' will these two be paid?

Almost no peanuts at all, if you mean in direct pay. But both those men are very wealthy. They are wealthy at the level where extra money doesn't mean anything as money - it's just a way of keeping score. They already have enough money that they can buy anything they want.

And being appointed to a cabinet position is a better score than a few extra sacks of cash. What they're getting paid in now is really status, not money.

Trump's case is that rich businessmen instinctively understand the economy (because they're making money, so they must know how it works) in a way that other people don't. This is why Trump is all over the map so often - he operates on instinct.

The problem is that he doesn't seem to have worked out what a government is for.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Running a corporation is a totally different skill than running a government department. You might as well put a short order fry cook into the post, it would work just as well. Don't believe me? Well, just look at them.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Running a corporation is a totally different skill than running a government department.

Yes, it is. But Trump doesn't think so. Trump is trying to "run" the US the way he runs his business.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Now I’m just plain confused. Trump says he wants to put solar panels on his wall. Aside the obvious absurdity of the whole project, how does that square with keeping coal mines open and screwing up the Paris agreement on Climate Change? This makes no sense.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the POST, explaining why it makes no sense. Like master, like man.

[fixed broken link]

[ 22. June 2017, 14:59: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is from the POST, explaining why it makes no sense. Like master, like man.

[fixed broken link]

The Post won't let me read that without paying them to do so.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Essentially, since li'l Donny says anything that pops into his head, consistency is not to be expected. (If you have a public library card, and go through their web site, you may well be able to access the POST for free. Or, if you have a .mil or .edu address, or Amazon Prime, you can get a free subscription.)
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Presumably the solar panels will have to be on the south-facing side of the wall? That could cause a few problems.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Re Georgia Special Election: I think I'm right in saying that the previous incumbent had a majority of about 23%, whereas the current Republican seems to have hung on to the seat by a majority of about 1.3%. (I can't find a report of the swing, which is weird, but I'm no google wizard). To me, that works out to be something like a 22% swing away from the Republicans in a red state.

Why are the Democrats casting this as a loss, requiring soul-searching? Do they require a national swing of more than 20% to wrest away control of Congress?

It may be that they're casting it as a loss because it was a loss. John Ossoff lost. He lost by a smaller margin than one would expect for a Democrat in Georgia's 6th district, but a narrower losing margin doesn't get anyone a seat in Congress.

In terms of the big picture, it does represent a shift. Tom Price won re-election in that district last November by a margin of 23.4 percentage points. Some of that, of course, can be attributed to the natural advantages of incumbency. The Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) for GA-06 is R+8, which means that a generic Republican can typically expect to beat a generic Democrat in that district by a margin of about 8 percentage points. In a race where neither candidate enjoyed the advantages of incumbency Karen Handel won by 3.8 percentage points. So she underperformed the PVI by 4 percentage points. Not huge, but not something that can be ignored either.

Our other data point is the special election in SC-05, which has a PVI of R+9 and was held the same day as GA-06. There the Republican candidate won by a margin of 3.2 percentage points, so there does seem to be a real shift of 4-6 percentage points relative to PVI, at least for non-incumbent candidates.

If we assume that this shift is national and uniform and if we assume that it will hold until November 2018 (both very big "ifs") it seems likely the Democrats will retake control of the House of Representatives. Shifting the PVI 4 points in the Democrat's favor yields a House with 223 Democrats, 200 Republicans, and 12 races which are essentially toss-ups. Shifting the PVI 6 points in the Democrat's favor gives a House with at least 245 Democratic members, 181 Republicans, and 9 toss-up districts. This is, of course, fairly crude modeling not taking into account incumbency, gerrymandering, and other factors.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
Trump is trying to "run" the US the way he runs his business.
...and like all bad managers, has failed to grasp the difference between problems that can be solved (by other people) if you shout at them loud enough, and problems that can't.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Presumably the solar panels will have to be on the south-facing side of the wall? That could cause a few problems.

That was my immediate reaction, too.
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Don't they also have to be at an angle, so as to catch the rays properly?

I can see the Mexicans having a lot of fun (and free power) by siphoning it off (if you can do that with lektricitity).

Or they could just spray-paint over them, so they don't work.

Or pinch them, and put them on their own houses.

Or charge the US Government for hanging them on the Mexican side of the border.

Does The Odious Orange Ozymandias ever think anything through?

O, sorry - I used the word think. Does not compute, does not compute, does not......

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Don't they also have to be at an angle, so as to catch the rays properly?

I can see the Mexicans having a lot of fun (and free power) by siphoning it off (if you can do that with lektricitity).

Or they could just spray-paint over them, so they don't work.

Or pinch them, and put them on their own houses.

Or charge the US Government for hanging them on the Mexican side of the border.

Does The Odious Orange Ozymandias ever think anything through?

O, sorry - I used the word think. Does not compute, does not compute, does not......

IJ

I think the entire wall would have to be built on U.S. territory, so even the Mexican side would have to be U.S. property. Which will not stop any of the things you mentioned, or rocks being thrown at it. But Mexico could not charge the U.S. for solar panels on the south side of the wall.

No, the Odious Orange Ozymandias never thinks anything through. Such as how much more expensive it would be up front to build a solar panel wall than a cement block or steel wall.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I imagine the cunning Mexicans (Bad Hombres though they be) will somehow find a way to screw the US of A for simply pointing the wall at them.

I had forgot that the Great, Big, Hyuuuge, Beautiful Wall will not, of course, straddle the border, but does that not mean that there will be, in places, a sort of No Hombres' Land between real Mexico and the Wall?

[Confused]

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Running a corporation is a totally different skill than running a government department.

Yes, it is. But Trump doesn't think so. Trump is trying to "run" the US the way he runs his business.
So, it would be better off if he left it in autopilot and stepped away, just as his businesses would have been.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And in other news he didn't tape Comey.

BUT

Maybe there are things about the White House Routine administration that he hasn't found out yet ...

Shouldn't think Comey is bothered either way.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I had forgot that the Great, Big, Hyuuuge, Beautiful Wall will not, of course, straddle the border, but does that not mean that there will be, in places, a sort of No Hombres' Land between real Mexico and the Wall?

Like the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart, Trump's putative wall will theoretically be built entirely on the territory of the constructing government, not the land of those it's trying to keep out. There are some complications here, though. For example, the border between Texas and Mexico is the Rio Grande. In addition to all of the construction difficulties associated with building anything on a river bank, there's the problem of "walling off" U.S. access to the river. El Paso and Laredo, to name two obvious examples, use the Rio Grande to supply their municipal water. Having an impenetrable barrier in the way seems problematic.

Of course, I suspect that The Wall will be purely rhetorical. Or possibly a lot of public money will be appropriated and disappear mysteriously into several New Jersey based construction companies with nothing physical to show for it. It's very easy to put solar panels on it if all you have to do is verbally stipulate them.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I'm sure you're right, and that Orange Ozymandias (who did, or did not, tape Comey) is full of Hot Air.

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I know he's signed loads of Executive Orders. But has he actually managed to implement successfully any of his major pre-election promises?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No. Not that his base has really noticed, even though the promise was to do All This Stuff in the first 100 days. A little thing like Lyin' Don's promises won't affect his true fans.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I know he's signed loads of Executive Orders. But has he actually managed to implement successfully any of his major pre-election promises?

Well, ICE and CBP seem to have really stepped up their enforcement, both in terms of numbers and abusiveness. The Justice Department has reversed the Obama administration decision to stop using private prisons and Jeff Sessions has re-energized the War on [some classes of people who use certain types of] Drugs. This would seem to be in line with Trump's promise to be a 'law and order' president.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I imagine the cunning Mexicans (Bad Hombres though they be) will somehow find a way to screw the US of A for simply pointing the wall at them.

I had forgot that the Great, Big, Hyuuuge, Beautiful Wall will not, of course, straddle the border, but does that not mean that there will be, in places, a sort of No Hombres' Land between real Mexico and the Wall?

[Confused]

IJ

Yes. In fact, some trump supporters have recently learned that
their property would be among those parcels falling on the wrong side of the wall. Assuming the south side is the "wrong" side-- not such a certainty these days
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
cliffdweller:
quote:
Yes. In fact, some trump supporters have recently learned that
their property would be among those parcels falling on the wrong side of the wall.

[Disappointed] You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs. Suck it up, buttercups.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Under the open mouth, insert foot, swallow hard category, today Trump admitted he was using the threats of tapes in order to influence Comey's testimony before Congress.

He was sued for making the same threats in his real estate ventures. He lost that suit.

DT just does not know what obstruction of justice entails. He has now publicly admitted it.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
Maybe he's planning to make the Mexicans pay for the solar panels too [Roll Eyes]

Huia
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Ah yes, so that his supporters on the wrong side of the Wall get Free Electricity!

[Cool]

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Have we shared the video of Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico, here yet? [Warning -- he uses a couple of words that you might not want played out loud if you're at work or around small children.] But it's hilarious!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Have we shared the video of Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico, here yet? [Warning -- he uses a couple of words that you might not want played out loud if you're at work or around small children.] But it's hilarious!

[Killing me]
Much of what is directed against the Flaming Mad Cheeto is amusing only because we do not like him.
I don't care who you are, that was just funny.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I don't know about that, but I think this is surgically incisive humour at its finest.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Why is there so much discussion on a wall that will not be built? We really do not hear much about it in the American press.

Congress will not pass such a project.

Property owners along the path will fight it. Environmentalists will also take Trump to court.

It will be tied up in the court system longer than Trump will be present.

Trending in American press, regarding Trump is his stumbling admission that there was indeed Russian interference in the American election (He denies any evidence of it, but then says Obama should have stopped it)

There is also his alleged involvement with Russian financiers.

Simply put. The wall is not going to happen.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Point taken but I think it's the sheer, unadulterated, HYUUUGE, bizarreness of the whole concept of a Wall that captures the attention (and imagination) of an island race!

Actually, of course, we have a couple of Walls of our own, to protect us from the wild Picts and Scots, and just look how successful they've been....

...och aye, Ah'll get ma bonnet the noo, an put it on ma heid....

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The wall is useful because it is the quintessential example of the lies that Lyin' Don tells, knowing full well from the outset that there is no way they can ever come true. Fact does not slow him down in the slightest, and you can hardly get a better example of his fantabulization. Even his most devout follower must have known, on some level, that the wall was impossible (The Mexicans to pay for it, yeah right) but they were able to suppress or ignore that knowledge. Everyone collaborated on the lie because it fed their prejudices.

[ 25. June 2017, 16:22: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
knowing full well from the outset that there is no way they can ever come true.

This assumes more thought than appears to be put into anything he says. He just says shit.
quote:

Fact does not slow him down in the slightest,

Fact is not even part of the equation when he utters what passes for a thought.


quote:
Everyone collaborated on the lie because it fed their prejudices.

Some of this, yes. But I think it more complicated than this. However, whatever the motive, most of it is delusional.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
So the Emperor has not only no Clothes, but also no Wall?

Poor, benighted chap. You couldn't make it up.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I am willing to bet that there will never be a wall. There will be caterwauling about it, but not one brick will ever be laid on another.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Point taken but I think it's the sheer, unadulterated, HYUUUGE, bizarreness of the whole concept of a Wall that captures the attention (and imagination) of an island race!

Actually, of course, we have a couple of Walls of our own, to protect us from the wild Picts and Scots, and just look how successful they've been....

...och aye, Ah'll get ma bonnet the noo, an put it on ma heid....

IJ

And the Welsh. Don't forget them. Bloody Tudors. Couldn't keep them out.

I have a recollection of seeing some sort of barrier near US towns that abut the southern border. Very ugly. I would not like it if I lived there. But then again, I wouldn't live there because of the heat.

All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

Oh, thanks to Croesos for punching out the numbers on the Georgia 6 special election. It was indeed a glorious outcome for the Dems and bodes well for next year.

How does each major party choose their candidates for Congress? Are there local selection committees for each seat, with the big folks coming in to dictate terms if the locals choose a squib?

[ 26. June 2017, 05:06: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am willing to bet that there will never be a wall. There will be caterwauling about it, but not one brick will ever be laid on another.

There actually is a wall. It does not cover the entire border. I would not be surprised if more is constructed or a section built higher. Not a completed structure, just enough to satisfy his base.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am willing to bet that there will never be a wall. There will be caterwauling about it, but not one brick will ever be laid on another.

There actually is a wall. It does not cover the entire border. I would not be surprised if more is constructed or a section built higher. Not a completed structure, just enough to satisfy his base.
Yep - a big deal will be made of it all, but it'll actually be a small section where there's already a wall [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

How does each major party choose their candidates for Congress? Are there local selection committees for each seat, with the big folks coming in to dictate terms if the locals choose a squib? [/QB]

It depends on the jurisdiction. The local party gets to decide how to select a candidate. Where I live (Virginia) the state GOP has been arguing for years, whether a primary is better than a nominating convention. A primary means that people get to vote and choose a candidate. The convention means that only people at the convention get to choose, a smaller pool of deciders. This has led to calamity a few years ago, when they selected a moron -- the guy was utterly defeated in the general election in November. So now they're doing primaries, but there's a die-hard group insisting that conventions are better.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

Oh, thanks to Croesos for punching out the numbers on the Georgia 6 special election. It was indeed a glorious outcome for the Dems and bodes well for next year.

Are we talking about the same dems who have spent most of the last decade getting their teeth kicked in?

By the measure of the GA-6, even if they had $25 million to spend on every race, they would still lose...

Hysterical opposition as a party platform will not be effective in 2018. Absent a coherent message I won't be surprised to see them lose more seats...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Lack of a coherent message worked for Trump
ETA: That wasn't fair. Racism acts as a cement for all the lies and contradiction, it would seem.

[ 26. June 2017, 17:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Does the data show how useful all the money Democrats poured into the Georgia special election was in improving the Democratic share of the vote and Democratic turnout, even if it did not win the election. We know that the Democratic share of the vote was greatly improved, but is there any way people can examine how much of that improvement was due to all the money spent on the campaign (did the Dems greatly outspend the GOP)? And also the effectiveness specifically of advertising (and in particular television advertising) bought with that money?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Lack of a coherent message worked for Trump
ETA: That wasn't fair. Racism acts as a cement for all the lies and contradiction, it would seem.

Yeah, they should stick with racism, Russia, and Pelosi...that'll be a winner for sure! I can't decide which of those is more tired and meaningless.

Meanwhile SCOTUS upholds the travel ban, and the rumbles continue regarding Kennedy's retirement. A second appointment in the Gorsuch model would cement Trump's legacy just months into his first term.

The d's are completely impotent, it seems.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Yeah, they should stick with racism, Russia,

Those are Republican't strong suite. Well, they don't own racism. Teabaggers and other libertarian groups seem to like it just fine.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

How does each major party choose their candidates for Congress? Are there local selection committees for each seat, with the big folks coming in to dictate terms if the locals choose a squib?

It depends on the jurisdiction. The local party gets to decide how to select a candidate. Where I live (Virginia) the state GOP has been arguing for years, whether a primary is better than a nominating convention. A primary means that people get to vote and choose a candidate. The convention means that only people at the convention get to choose, a smaller pool of deciders. This has led to calamity a few years ago, when they selected a moron -- the guy was utterly defeated in the general election in November. So now they're doing primaries, but there's a die-hard group insisting that conventions are better. [/QB]
cheers. Not much point in branch-stacking then...
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

Oh, thanks to Croesos for punching out the numbers on the Georgia 6 special election. It was indeed a glorious outcome for the Dems and bodes well for next year.

Are we talking about the same dems who have spent most of the last decade getting their teeth kicked in?

By the measure of the GA-6, even if they had $25 million to spend on every race, they would still lose...

Hysterical opposition as a party platform will not be effective in 2018. Absent a coherent message I won't be surprised to see them lose more seats...

The politics I can understand. It's the moral position of those on the right in the USA that I don't get. Why do they support laws that result in the rich getting richer? Why don't they want to provide universal healthcare? Why are they so opposed to socialism, sneering it like its a dirty word. Why don't they want to fix gun crime in America? Why do they hate not just politicians, but bureaucrats?

I just don't get that stuff. I'd like to try and understand it from you, because I reckon most people don't give a flying feck for theories.

Have a whiskey or two before you post. I want the honesty that only alcohol can provide.

[ 27. June 2017, 08:13: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
It's the moral position of those on the right in the USA that I don't get. Why do they support laws that result in the rich getting richer? Why don't they want to provide universal healthcare? Why are they so opposed to socialism, sneering it like its a dirty word. Why don't they want to fix gun crime in America? Why do they hate not just politicians, but bureaucrats?

The best explanation I've read is Stigginit:
quote:
the practice of some conservatives who engage in a practice not because of merit or self interest, but merely because the practice is opposed by a liberal, especially in those cases where the practice is clearly against one's self interest.

 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The politics I can understand. It's the moral position of those on the right in the USA that I don't get.

Moral position [Killing me] It's all about the money, honey.
quote:

Why do they support laws that result in the rich getting richer?

Because they are rich and/or their campaigns are paid for by the rich.
quote:

Why don't they want to provide universal healthcare?

Insurance companies spend a lot of money lobbying.
quote:

Why are they so opposed to socialism, sneering it like its a dirty word.

Smokescreen. To sell the poor on supporting the rich, they demonise socialism.
quote:

Why don't they want to fix gun crime in America?

The NRA spend loads of money buying support.
quote:

Why do they hate not just politicians, but bureaucrats?

That is more complicated. But mostly because they implement the policies.
quote:

Have a whiskey or two before you post. I want the honesty that only alcohol can provide.

Alchohol does not induce truth. It reduces inhibition and clouds judgement. So...

[ 27. June 2017, 13:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
It's the moral position of those on the right in the USA that I don't get. Why do they support laws that result in the rich getting richer? Why don't they want to provide universal healthcare? Why are they so opposed to socialism, sneering it like its a dirty word. Why don't they want to fix gun crime in America? Why do they hate not just politicians, but bureaucrats?

The best explanation I've read is Stigginit:
quote:
the practice of some conservatives who engage in a practice not because of merit or self interest, but merely because the practice is opposed by a liberal, especially in those cases where the practice is clearly against one's self interest.

The politics of spite are quite strong. There are also quite a few liberals here who would be much happier seeing Republicans shamed, embarrassed, indicted, convicted, etc. (although many Republicans may indeed deserve such things), than they would in seeing any constructive legislation passed.

There are a fair number of people in the bases of both sides (not the wealthiest financers of politicians, mind you, who do expect to get material benefits from what the government does or doesn't do) who do not expect government to do much to materially help them, but rather expect it to make them feel better by shaming and attacking the other side and the other punching bags their own political side shares (on the Right: intellectuals, liberal activists, secularists, immigrants, government benefit recipients (not counting old-age benefits, which magically are not seen as government benefits), Hollywood, the Mainstream Media, Muslims, unions, government employees, and people of color who bring up the fact that racial disparities remain enormous; on the Left: Wall Street, the 1% (completely ignoring the inequality-supporting policies supported by many of the Democrats in the top 20% of income), Russia, fossil fuels, Evangelicals (and Christians in general who talk about more than the love your neighbor and feed the poor parts of the Bible), Fox News and assorted conservative pundits, people who are enthusiastic about their guns, and stereotypical relatively-uneducated whites).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Those of you in the UK can possibly understand how a concerted PR effort can induce the crucial fraction of the electorate into voting for what is clearly and provably against their best interests.

You must also allow for the inherent racism and sexism built into American politics. Clinton was viciously pelted with all the code words applied to uppity women ('hysterical' and 'sickly' come to mind but there are millions more). Republicans declared that they would vote against anything Obama proposed simply because he proposed it, whether it was good or not. They missed a big bet in this effort to 'repeal and replace' Obamacare. (Polls have been done, going through the features of O-care; when you don't use the name the features are applauded.) If they had simply passed the exact same law again, only renaming it TrumpCare, then all would be well and Li'l Donny would be hailed as Christ returned to earth.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Eek!] I thought he already had been so hailed, at least by some...

IJ
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Those of you in the UK can possibly understand how a concerted PR effort can induce the crucial fraction of the electorate into voting for what is clearly and provably against their best interests.

You must also allow for the inherent racism and sexism built into American politics. Clinton was viciously pelted with all the code words applied to uppity women ('hysterical' and 'sickly' come to mind but there are millions more). Republicans declared that they would vote against anything Obama proposed simply because he proposed it, whether it was good or not. They missed a big bet in this effort to 'repeal and replace' Obamacare. (Polls have been done, going through the features of O-care; when you don't use the name the features are applauded.) If they had simply passed the exact same law again, only renaming it TrumpCare, then all would be well and Li'l Donny would be hailed as Christ returned to earth.

But then the Democrats would find a reason to hate this hypothetical Trumpcare formerly-known-as-Obamacare merely because the GOP passed it. Politics has become a spectator sport for a lot of people except it's not just about political teams winning and losing it's also about cultural tribes benefitting at the expense of the other in a game that is believed to be zero sum.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The politics I can understand. It's the moral position of those on the right in the USA that I don't get.

That's an awfully broad brush you wield there...and I would submit that the left in the USA are far and away the biggest moral tyrants in recent years.

quote:
Why do they support laws that result in the rich getting richer?
Granting your premise for the purpose of discussion, why would I care if a rich person gets richer? Is there but one static pile of wealth available?

I am middle income, working class USAsian. I am a King on earth, wealthy beyond any reasonable proportion to the vast majority of my fellow earthlings. I don't resent avarice, I pity it...

quote:
Why don't they want to provide universal healthcare?
Because they have seen the ambulances crossing Ambassador bridge carrying Canadian newborns to NICU beds in Detroit, they've seen the NHS, they've been in a DMV and they damned sure don't want to get their health care from the same service provider...

quote:
Why are they so opposed to socialism, sneering it like its a dirty word.
Venezuela?

Along with the fact that they are pretty happy with the results of American capitalism...

quote:
Why don't they want to fix gun crime in America?
Because the vast majority of gun crime victims in the US are people that no one gives a shit about, and any effort toward real solutions would require an honest dialog that certain segments of the population are simply not willing or prepared to have.

quote:
Why do they hate not just politicians, but bureaucrats?
Have you dealt with the bureaucracy? That's why they hate bureaucrats...
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Cheers mate. I'd like to get back to this, but probably tomorrow after work. I need to ruminate a bit.

Plus, I'd like to see the US launch a preemptive strike against Assad. They have the evidence of preparations, let's pop a few off at the bastard's family.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, the 'awfully broad brush' comment was followed by loads of broad brushing. And there was some obviously ambiguous use of the word 'they'. Plus some pretty insensitive comments about murder victims and, by implication, those bereaved.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'd like to see the US launch a preemptive strike against Assad. They have the evidence of preparations, let's pop a few off at the bastard's family.

If only President Obama had had the resolve!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
they've seen the NHS

The NHS is awesome. And a darn sight cheaper than the US healthcare system(s), I might add...
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The point being that I doubt many have first-hand sight of the NHS. Most of the "seeing" of the NHS will have been done through Fox news.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Yes, "seeing the mass media propaganda about the NHS" is not the same as "seeing the NHS". If you ever fall ill whilst on holiday on this side of the pond you might be pleasantly surprised, as this American doctor was.

And who do you think has been keeping Stephen Hawking alive all these years?

[ 28. June 2017, 12:40: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have an American writer friend who went to France. In Paris he fell off a curb into the street. Broke two bones in his hand. Off to the hospital he went, where they stuck him together and put him into a sling. Then he braced himself for the real agony, the bill. They cast him a glance of pitying contempt. "This is -France-, monsieur," the doctor said. "There is no charge. Go home and get well." He will tell you himself, that the very same incident in Philadelphia would have cost, oh, well north of $10,000.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If you ever fall ill whilst on holiday on this side of the pond you might be pleasantly surprised...

I was traveling in the U.K. with a friend who had a bad fall. We were both surprised by the excellent care and amazed that there was no charge, even for a foreigner.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
/slight tangent/

That experience doesn't quite equate with that of my sister-in-law's father, who was taken ill (low blood pressure) whilst on holiday in France (I was one of the party). Ambulance called, off to hospital in a smallish country town, Pa in A & E, hospitalised overnight, tests, ECG etc. etc., all for the paltry sum of 25 euros on admission, and 50 euros on discharge (including the evening primrose oil foot massage, which he greatly enjoyed!). My s-in-l was able to claim back the 75 euros, which, for the excellence of the treatment received, was, as I say, a paltry amount.

Well done, France! Vive la Republique!

But, as a true-born Englishman (of Scottish/Irish and French ancestry), I have to say that the NHS is, indeed, awesome.
[Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think the French health system charges for injuries caused by accidents. The NHS has tightened up, but I think it is only non-emergency surgery which is charged for, and the various NHS trusts aren't too keen on trying to collect payments for that.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
BBC report on NHS charges for foreigners. I think it is as it suggests - charges for non-urgent care.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That may explain why my sister-in-law's Pa's experience varied slightly from that of Brenda's friend. His Funny Turn was caused by an existing condition.

Either way, Good Jobs were Jobbed - and I don't doubt that they would also be Jobbed well in America, except for the cost in $$$$$$.....

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I was referring to mr cheesy's first post, but his second (with link) indicates that there is now some system for charging for non-emergencies.

Going back to Orange Man, there is no doubt in my mind that, should he visit Headless Chicken Land, and fall in need of hospital treatment, the charges should be both HYUUUGE and BIGLY.

IJ
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Going back to Orange Man, there is no doubt in my mind that, should he visit Headless Chicken Land, and fall in need of hospital treatment, the charges should be both HYUUUGE and BIGLY.

It won't happen. After all, Trump is the Most Astonishingly Healthy President that there has Ever Been.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Doesn't mean he might not get run over by a Bus (not that I wish it would happen - bus drivers have enough hassle these days as it is).

[Snigger]

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
They'd never get those orange stains off the tires.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
And the passengers would be delayed and inconvenienced.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Bigly. And there'd be more of them than in any previous bus accident.....

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I'm reading his golf course has a poster of a fake Time cover. With him on it of course.

:shakes head:
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I'm reading his golf course has a poster of a fake Time cover. With him on it of course.

:shakes head:

You mean these? They're apparently at four or five of his golf resorts.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Oh! They come in sets. Thank you. I think.

The man is rather enamored of himself.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
But wait, there's ever so much more! Did you know the man is a golf champion?
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I'm surprised he doesn't wear a cape and have a bigly H on his chest.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I was referring to mr cheesy's first post, but his second (with link) indicates that there is now some system for charging for non-emergencies.

In practice the system isn't very functional, and often can't manage to claim from US insurance firms because of the Byzantine sequential nature of the forms they are required to complete justifying the expenses. It's cheaper to eat the costs than to hire someone with the expertise to claim back.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I have sometimes wondered how good a golfer Trump actually is. He seems to play only at his own courses where he can fire anyone who criticizes. Is there any trustworthy evidence on this?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He also drives his golf cart onto the greens, which I am told is anathema on good golf courses.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Is it a gold-plated golf cart?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Possibly, but it's certain to be biglier than any other golf-cart...

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I found this instructive. "An Insider's View: The Dark Rigidity of Fundamentalist Rural America", which tries to explain the irrationality of a segment of the American electorate which voted for that guy.

There are many quotable things within, however, I think I will just note that the author's opinion is that change has to come from within, external influences are automatically discounted. Which seems to suggest that the current USA president is a symptom not the disease.

So I'll quote this:
quote:
When a child has an irrational fear, you can deal with it because they trust you and are open to possibilities. When someone doesn’t trust you and isn’t open to anything not already accepted as true in their belief system, there really isn’t much, if anything, you can do.
Which is mostly depressing. I probably shouldn't be reading an history of WW1 just now: the author suggests something personal and unavoidable is required. Even though the USA civil war didn't really result in giving up their idea that the southern states were wrong. etc

[ 29. June 2017, 17:37: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
My brother in law is a pastor in central Texas, essentially the people this book seems to be about. For decades now he has been gently trying to lead his congregation into a more open mindset. I see no signs of success so far. (I do not think it particularly helps for him to have us down for Xmas services. I do not look like anybody in, at a rough guess, 500 miles of that church.)
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Today Huffington Post has an item under "Comedy" of Tweeted proposed titles for Trump biographies. I think my favorite may be "TrumpelThinSkin".
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

And who do you think has been keeping Stephen Hawking alive all these years?

The same system looking after Charlie Gard?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

And who do you think has been keeping Stephen Hawking alive all these years?

The same system looking after Charlie Gard?
Step on down
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
In professional wrestling the "heel" (for those who do not know) is the character who the audience loves to hate, who embodies something like arrogance or wickedness that the audience is united in opposing. In the very low-level stakes of a regional wrestling league in Appalachia where there are many Trump supporters, a man who actually identifies as a liberal has started playing the part of the heel as a character named "Progressive Liberal."

(article may be behind a paywall for some of you - sorry)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/28/he-calls-himself-progressive-liberal-hes-the-most-hated-wrestle r-on-the-appalachian-circuit/?utm_term=.c5b4042108be

My comments (on this thread or elsewhere) about politics becoming a) tribal and b) a spectator sport are coming true in a way that surprises even me!

The audience knows it's all a performance and in good fun but there is a real rage behind their disgust at this heel. The anger would be the same if a "Traditional Conservative" heel performed on a wrestling circuit in a liberal part of the country, but the audience's chest-thumping would be less focused on guns they are carrying in the bleachers! Not that I think anyone will actually use those guns to settle a dispute at a wrestling match - but the stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
One of the comments to the linked article sums it up perfectly:

quote:
This guy's gimmick works because everything he’s saying is true.

 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Haven't read the above, just skimmed. I'm busy playing computer games at the moment, having secured a domination victory at Emperor difficulty level in Civ VI, and renewed my hope that I might one day beat the game at the top difficulty level. The game is quite slow in the late stages, so this takes a while.

Anyway, I do want to continue my exploration of Romanlion's politics as one example of right-wing US thinking. I wonder though whether this is the right environment. I'd prefer just to listen and ask exploratory questions without going for gotcha moments, or "oh what a dickhead" responses. Maybe private chat is better...

I don't know. Maybe other people want to do this too?
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Haven't read the above, just skimmed. I'm busy playing computer games at the moment, having secured a domination victory at Emperor difficulty level in Civ VI, and renewed my hope that I might one day beat the game at the top difficulty level. The game is quite slow in the late stages, so this takes a while.

Anyway, I do want to continue my exploration of Romanlion's politics as one example of right-wing US thinking. I wonder though whether this is the right environment. I'd prefer just to listen and ask exploratory questions without going for gotcha moments, or "oh what a dickhead" responses. Maybe private chat is better...

I don't know. Maybe other people want to do this too?

I can't speak for Romanlion but as you probably know, it's often best to not assume that commenters on online forums are representative of voters in a country. This is true for commenters from the right, the left, libertarians, people with views that are too bizarre to fit into any box, etc. The internet, and online forums where people can be anonymous in particular, are woefully inaccurate at representing the opinions of the electorate. Romanlion, I'm assuming, would agree with me. And I don't assume you're representative of Aussie voters either [Biased] . Although I have Aussie in laws, and although I like your healthcare system compared with ours, your country is chock full of crazy folk and crazy politicians just like ours. When I watch the morning news shows or the 24 hour news channels in Australia and they talk politics, I want to shoot myself just as much as I do when watching similar shows here [Smile] .
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

Anyway, I do want to continue my exploration of Romanlion's politics as one example of right-wing US thinking.

This cannot easily be addressed in Ourg. Ask on the other thread and I will give an answer.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Haven't read the above, just skimmed. I'm busy playing computer games at the moment, having secured a domination victory at Emperor difficulty level in Civ VI, and renewed my hope that I might one day beat the game at the top difficulty level. The game is quite slow in the late stages, so this takes a while.

Anyway, I do want to continue my exploration of Romanlion's politics as one example of right-wing US thinking. I wonder though whether this is the right environment. I'd prefer just to listen and ask exploratory questions without going for gotcha moments, or "oh what a dickhead" responses. Maybe private chat is better...

I don't know. Maybe other people want to do this too?

I can't speak for Romanlion but as you probably know, it's often best to not assume that commenters on online forums are representative of voters in a country. This is true for commenters from the right, the left, libertarians, people with views that are too bizarre to fit into any box, etc. The internet, and online forums where people can be anonymous in particular, are woefully inaccurate at representing the opinions of the electorate. Romanlion, I'm assuming, would agree with me. And I don't assume you're representative of Aussie voters either [Biased] . Although I have Aussie in laws, and although I like your healthcare system compared with ours, your country is chock full of crazy folk and crazy politicians just like ours. When I watch the morning news shows or the 24 hour news channels in Australia and they talk politics, I want to shoot myself just as much as I do when watching similar shows here [Smile] .
rofl

Yeah, but those crazies I know [Smile]

I have other sources for information on right-wing Americans. I'd just prefer not to talk politics with them as I'm pretty sure one of them was on the one who looks like Uncle Fester before she was on the Giant Orange Idiot. If I talk with Romanlion, I talk with someone who I'm not at risk of blowing a relationship with.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

And who do you think has been keeping Stephen Hawking alive all these years?

The same system looking after Charlie Gard?
Worth one response in Purgatory. Yes, I'm sure that there would be a practitioner or two in the US prepared to offer the modern equivalent of snake oil, at an exorbitant price, to Charlie Gard's desperate parents. But what they have received in the UK is honest, professional, non-exploitative advice, which is in their best interests and also those of their desperately ill baby son.

I guess that conflicts with your libertarian philosophy. If they are desperate enough to want to spend money raised charitably in the folorn hope that something might be done, then isn't it wonderful that in the US there are folks prepared to take a shed load of that money to exploit their desperation.

I think the NHS and the courts show that the UK approach is wiser and better in this case. And also kinder.

I'm sure YMMV, but you're just wrong.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

And who do you think has been keeping Stephen Hawking alive all these years?

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The same system looking after Charlie Gard?

I think you'll find that severe mitochondrial disorders causing profound neurological damage have a very poor outlook wherever you are in the world, irrespective of the availability of experimental unproven treatments.

But I'm sure you knew that and were looking for a bit of mud.

If you want to denigrate the NHS there are plenty of other systems that arguably run better. French, German and various Scandinavian systems compare extremely favourably. They're all socialized of course.

I have heard some intelligent Republican arguments against state interference in healthcare, but I don't think you've hit on any yet. And pretending that the healthcare outcomes are better in the US is definitely not one of them.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Once again the media storm is over Trump tweets and fake magazine covers instead of the really scary stuff:

quote:
The vice chairman of President Trump’s commission on election integrity sent a letter to all 50 states Wednesday requesting information on their voter rolls.

The letter (...), directs states to turn over “publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.”


 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Eutychus, I'm not a person who is too concerned with the Govt. having allot of very detailed information on its people. Given the nature of the information available to large private sector companies, it is only fair and reasonable that the Govt should have as much of that information as it can get its hands on.

Apart from privacy concerns, what's the problem? I've read the article, and don't see any other issue.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Centralising people's voting history?

And then if states refuse, as some have, it can be said they have conspired to cover up voting fraud.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Barnabas--

[Votive] for Charlie, family, and all affecting his care.

I have no idea what the right decision would be in this case. But experimental and "one in a million" treatments do sometimes help, if only to give a little more time, and people fight to get them. Why shouldn't Charlie's parents fight for him?

Note: I hadn't heard of this until romanlion mentioned it. I did a quick search, and just skimmed through the results page. (Looked too painful to go further.) But I gather C is on life support, and there's been a big fight about either the EU taking him off life support, or his parents taking him to the US for special treatment.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But experimental and "one in a million" treatments do sometimes help, if only to give a little more time, and people fight to get them. Why shouldn't Charlie's parents fight for him?

It would be worth another thread to do this properly if people are interested, but a summary my concern with the experimental and one-in-a-million approach is that a) one can't justify substantial human suffering on that basis b) the expense isn't sustainable anywhere in the world and c) if we do that we'll never find out which treatments actually work and it's the end of rational medicine.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mdijon--

If you want to start a new thread, please do. Thx. [Smile]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Centralising people's voting history?

And then if states refuse, as some have, it can be said they have conspired to cover up voting fraud.

I'd be surprised if an Australian Federal Govt Department here doesn't have that information. We have a Privacy Act which governs its use. I think that extends to the Private Sector, but as I say, care factor zero here re privacy. That horse has bolted.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'd be surprised if an Australian Federal Govt Department here doesn't have that information.

Individuals' voting records?? [Eek!]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Meanwhile, I see that Ozymandias' travel ban on some Muslims has come into effect, albeit without the chaos caused by the first attempt.

How to win friends and influence people.....

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Centralising people's voting history?

And then if states refuse, as some have, it can be said they have conspired to cover up voting fraud.

If this comes to anything at all it will be a pension fund for lawyers.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Golden Key:
quote:
I have no idea what the right decision would be in this case. But experimental and "one in a million" treatments do sometimes help, if only to give a little more time, and people fight to get them. Why shouldn't Charlie's parents fight for him?
They did. They fought for him to be kept alive. The medical team responsible for his care argued that being flown to the USA for an experimental treatment that was extremely unlikely to work was not in his best interests and he should be allowed to die with dignity.

This went all the way through the British court system before being referred to the European Court of Human Rights. All the courts agreed with the medical experts' judgment that further treatment was not in Charlie's best interests.

The ECHR (which, incidentally, is not an agency of the European Union) merely upheld the decision of the (many) British courts which ruled on this matter. But it was a win-win situation for the tabloids, because if the ECHR had ruled in favour of Charlie's parents they could have had banner headlines about Loss of Sovereignty...

Doctors hate to lose their patients, especially when treating babies and small children. The medical team will not be rejoicing today; they'll be sad too.

Oh, and what Barnabas and mdijon said.

I suppose I ought to go and join in lilbuddha's Hell thread, but I don't think it's worth arguing with trolls.

[Votive] for the Gards.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'd be surprised if an Australian Federal Govt Department here doesn't have that information.

Individuals' voting records?? [Eek!]
My mother had dementia for the last 10+ years of her life. It is easy to go online and see the requested information about her and I've also looked up several other people. Like what Trump asked for, it is public information. The only question regarding the Trump request is who is going to have to take the time gathering that public information. It doesn't tell how someone voted, just whether or not they voted.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Once again the media storm is over Trump tweets and fake magazine covers instead of the really scary stuff.

I have written both of my senators and my state governor expressing concern over this latest move.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'd be surprised if an Australian Federal Govt Department here doesn't have that information.

Individuals' voting records?? [Eek!]
My mother had dementia for the last 10+ years of her life. It is easy to go online and see the requested information about her and I've also looked up several other people. Like what Trump asked for, it is public information.
Sort of yes, but really no. Looking up a mass list of every voter is typically not available to the general public. You can search the records but you typically have to know some info about the person you're trying to research, which limits most people to themselves, close relatives, or public figures about whom such information is already publicly available.

Some states even have laws on the books to prevent people from looking up other people's voter information, like Virginia whose voter info website states:

quote:
I certify and affirm that the information provided to access my voter registration is my own or I am expressly authorized by the voter to access this information. I understand that it is unlawful to access the record of any other voter, punishable as computer fraud under Va. Code § 18.2-152.3.

 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sort of yes, but really no. Looking up a mass list of every voter is typically not available to the general public. You can search the records but you typically have to know some info about the person you're trying to research, which limits most people to themselves, close relatives, or public figures about whom such information is already publicly available.

Some states even have laws on the books to prevent people from looking up other people's voter information, like Virginia whose voter info website states:

quote:
I certify and affirm that the information provided to access my voter registration is my own or I am expressly authorized by the voter to access this information. I understand that it is unlawful to access the record of any other voter, punishable as computer fraud under Va. Code § 18.2-152.3.
[/QB]
Ah, I see. I did not scroll through a list but looked specifically for her. As for the Virginia thing, it won't stop anyone except those who are too decent for politics.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It doesn't tell how someone voted, just whether or not they voted.

Here in Colorado, they send registered voters ballots in the mail (you can also go in person on election day, or in the month or so before). And there have been many proposals to not send ballots to registered voters who have not voted in the past few elections- the claim is that it invites fraud.

Each state, as I understand it, sets its own rules for how elections work, voting rights act issues aside. So I imagine the plan here is to come out with "proof" of mass fraud, and demand that Republican Secretaries of State follow certain White House promulgated "best practices" in setting rules for 2018 and 2020, which will no doubt recommend "common sense" solutions that happen to result in significant pruning of registrations in Democrat-heavy areas.

It's a long way out, and I try to avoid this kind of doomsday thinking, but I kind of wonder what will happen in 2020 if Trump loses. There's little chance that he wouldn't fire off some Wednesday morning tweets about mass voter fraud. But how far would it go? Mitch McConnell has certainly learned that ignoring republican norms (small r intentional there) can reap huge rewards. It's one thing when someone out of power threatens to not respect the results of the election. If Trump stays in place and dares anyone to do anything about it, what happens then?

I hope it doesn't, but it has potential to get real ugly.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, each state does it their own way. (You remember the far-famed 'hanging chads' in Florida.) You would think that this would drive a greater efficiency, with 50 petri dishes in which to experiment. But this assumes that efficiency, and getting a large turnout, is the goal. The hidden goal of the GOP is to drive turnout down. Hence the perpetual search for fraud, the gerrymandering, and the erecting of barriers preventing the poor, people in heavily-black districts, and so on, from exercising their franchise.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Surely you guyz across the Pond can come up with some way of getting shot of TOOO before 2020?

[Paranoid]

Somewhere on the 'news', FWIW (but I can't find the link), M. Macron is being hailed as the Anti-Trump..... [Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
As I said above, the big question is if the Republicans have seen enough reward to throw out republican norms.

Everyone was ready to call out Trump for being un-presidential yesterday. Will that lead to any of those people withdrawing support for the health care bill or a future Supreme Court nominee? Fat chance.

People ask if there is a point where he becomes so unpopular that he will hurt the Republicans in the next election, and they bail. I would suggest it's not a simple matter of what poll number he has to hit. Bailing on the President would piss off a large wing of the Republican party, so they have to worry about that. The 2018 Senate map is friendly for the Republicans, and the House map is generally Republican friendly as well, so it's going to have to be a big popularity deficit before they really see an electoral threat.

A few votes away from ending Obamacare and one Supreme Court retirement or death away from a five-vote conservative majority? They'll put up with a lot to stay in that position.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
...the plot thickens...

"Bill to create panel that could remove Trump from office quietly picks up Democratic support" (Yahoo News).
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I do wonder, and I haven't had the poor form to ask any of my American friends, both Democrats and Republicans, whether they feel like Romans at the end of the Republic.

[ 01. July 2017, 14:37: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
quote:
I do wonder, and I haven't had the poor form to ask any of my American friends, both Democrats and Republicans, whether they feel like Romans at the end of the Republic.

Sadly, yes.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Nero tweeting while Washington burns?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What probably will save us is the raw, overwhelming, undeniably blithering incompetence of Li'l Donny. He has all the attention span of a gnat, and watches only cable news. He reminds me of those crazy old men you see in bars or fast-food restaurants, yelling curses at the screen.
If he were able to focus upon a goal, the levers of power would lend him terrible strength. But he can't, any more than a four-year-old could. This is a dreadful and weak reed to lean upon, but so far, astonishingly, it seems to be holding.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
The problem is that while Trump is undeniably stupid, impulsive, mean, and petty, he's also extremely useful. As long as he helps the Republicans achieve some version of their agenda, he's safe. If the house and senate flip in 2018, it could change. But the Democrats are 0-2 in special elections since he took power, so that's far from a sure thing.

As I asked above, what happens if Trump loses in 2020? Will he step down gracefully, or will he cry voter fraud and dare anyone to remove him from office? And if, at that time, the Republicans remain one Supreme Court justice away from a majority with RBG not getting any younger, will they be able to resist playing along? That's when we really start looking like the end of the Roman Republic.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Was trumpy born this way, defective in personality and character, or was he deformed by his life experiences, where and how he was raised? If his life rhymes with Nixon's does that mean anything? Is there something about the American experiment involved? Is he the disease or one symptom of a larger pathology? And does this mean no hope for the human race?

(I write the above amid hopeful 01 July celebrations of 150 years of the Canadian experiment. And I consider nothing better, just different. )
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I do wonder, and I haven't had the poor form to ask any of my American friends, both Democrats and Republicans, whether they feel like Romans at the end of the Republic.

Absolutely. Or the middle of the book of Revelation. Or Germany circa 1938 or so.

I have my escape plan (had the foresight to marry a Canadian 28 years ago). So I keep wondering at what point do I pull the trigger? Obviously uprooting my family, leaving my two jobs and immigrating won't be easy-- although far far easier for me than most of my neighbors. But waiting too long may close off some avenues of escape...

Interestingly, as all this has continued to unfold, at some point I remarked to DH how grateful I was that he had not relinquished his Canadian citizenship years ago in favor of naturalization. Surprisingly, he remarked that he was now thinking of doing so-- as an act of solidarity with the country that has been his home for the past 30 years, not leaving when the going gets tough.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

If he were able to focus upon a goal, the levers of power would lend him terrible strength. But he can't, any more than a four-year-old could.

Four-year-old? Our twins are four and they have more empathy, sense, manners and ability to focus than he has in his (very) little finger.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I had to set it at four, because by the time you are four you are, with luck, no longer in diapers. Incontinence (at least of that sort) is one thing that Crooked Don has never been accused of, and I shall not be the first to begin.

I have friends who are emigrating to either Canada or Ireland (depending on real estate prices) this year. They are hanging onto their property here in the US, however, so that they can vote absentee. If you leave, don't give up your citizenship. We will need your vote.

If Lyin' Don is re-elected in 2020 that's when you'll start to see the real exodus starting up.

[ 01. July 2017, 18:21: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
If you actually want a nightmare scenario, think of Trump-Trump-Kushner-Kushner.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a free click and a day-brightener. You will remember that Buzz Aldrin went to the Moon; the Buzz Lightyear in the Pixar movie is named after him.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a free click and a day-brightener. You will remember that Buzz Aldrin went to the Moon; the Buzz Lightyear in the Pixar movie is named after him.

I suppose it's forgivable that he doesn't get the Toy Story reference-- I doubt very much he was the one taking his young kids to the movies. But the exchange also suggests he has absolutely no idea what "infinity" means.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a free click and a day-brightener. You will remember that Buzz Aldrin went to the Moon; the Buzz Lightyear in the Pixar movie is named after him.

I suppose you need a little light relief, but this just depresses me.

Can you really do no more than poke fun at the guy? As cliffdweller says, is your benchmark whether or not he catches contemporary culture references that happen to be important to you? Is all your creative energy directed at finding new names to call him?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Trump is absolutely brilliant at catching contemporary culture references that win him votes, and that is all that matters.

I have this vision of Democrats spending four years being outraged at Trump tweets, poking fun at his apparent stupidity, and dreaming every Thursday of the Great Friday Newsdump that will magically get him out of office by the next week's.

Then they will wonder why he wins a second term by a landslide.

By carrying on like this you are making yourselves believe the guy is a fool and easily caught. As somone whose experience with a con artist is most enlightening when it comes to analysing Trump, take it from me: he isn't and he won't be.

To remove Trump you need to do better than do him down. You need to come up with a compelling and vote-winning alternative.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Eutychus, I'm with you -- to a point.

I frankly don't think 44.3 is removable until or unless he somehow imperils 2018 election outcomes. The Senate is fairly safe in that regard; it's only the House which might be affected. That'll make for a 2-year-stalled Congress, but it won't change much else.

I also think most liberals have this the wrong way around. We should stop wondering how this petty, nasty, stupid, ignorant vulgarian managed to become President. He wasn't elected despite these shortcomings; he was elected because of them.

He was elected because of all the times our jaunty, confident, liberal selves sat quietly through Thanksgiving dinner while That Racist Sister-in-Law cracked nasty jokes, and we decided it was better to keep peace at table and avoid family squabbles than to challenge her.

He was elected because of the times we "picked our battles" on some church committee rather than call out the homophobe committee member.

He was elected because of the times we didn't want to make a fuss when a male acquaintance kept "mansplaining" while we were answering someone else's question about our own lives.

We have been too polite and too nice, and too nonconfrontational and our polite, liberal silence has been received as acceptance by the substantial subset of the US population which is racist, sexist, ageist, nativist, and on and on.

When we HAVE confronted such prejudices, we have been instantly marginalized as feminazis, bleeding hearts, tree-huggers, or what-have-you.

We have been living in a fool's paradise, and we have to stop being so nice, polite, and quiet.

We also have to stop diagnosing the President. We're the ones who helped put this guy in office; we're the ones in need of diagnosis.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:

He was elected because of all the times our jaunty, confident, liberal selves sat quietly through Thanksgiving dinner while That Racist Sister-in-Law cracked nasty jokes, and we decided it was better to keep peace at table and avoid family squabbles than to challenge her.

He was elected because of the times we "picked our battles" on some church committee rather than call out the homophobe committee member.

He was elected because of the times we didn't want to make a fuss when a male acquaintance kept "mansplaining" while we were answering someone else's question about our own lives.

We have been too polite and too nice, and too nonconfrontational and our polite, liberal silence has been received as acceptance by the substantial subset of the US population which is racist, sexist, ageist, nativist, and on and on.

When we HAVE confronted such prejudices, we have been instantly marginalized as feminazis, bleeding hearts, tree-huggers, or what-have-you.

We have been living in a fool's paradise, and we have to stop being so nice, polite, and quiet.

Absolutely.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
...
Apart from privacy concerns, what's the problem? I've read the article, and don't see any other issue.

The purpose is voter intimidation. When Simon Toad shows up to vote in Nevada, some "poll watcher" will say, "Wait a sec, there's a Simon Toad registered in Virginia, and another in Oregon, and three in New York. And one has the same birthday as you, and another has the same last four digits in his SSN as you. Let's see forty-three pieces of ID. Got any proof you used to live in Virginia? How do we know you didn't vote three times in New York already? VOTER FRAUD!!!!!" Of course, none of this has anything to do with the fact that Simon Toad is registered in Nevada as a Democrat ...

And yes, of course these people know that in a country of over 300 million people and only 365 days in a year, lots of people have the same birthday. You only have to look in the phone book - remember that? - to discover how common duplicate names are. If I've done my math right, up to 100,000 SSNs can have the same last 4 digits as mine. That's not the point. The point is to feign ignorance of basic math, create the myth that there are millions of people voting illegally, and justify voter suppression efforts.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I don't think I have been nice and quiet. It is not my nature. Polite? As a tool.

I doubt if anyone has ever been converted, when confronted with their homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. Remember that it is a secret ballot in this country. You can go into the voting booth and vote for the bigot if you like, and no one will ever know. Confront them, nicely or not. Will it make a difference?

I take hope in the general trend of society. We can look at the world (those of us who are old enough) and see how it has changed, in our lifetimes. You can still -be- racist. But you have difficulty now, saying it aloud, acting casually about it, paying your black employees less than your white ones. Or look at gay and lesbian issues. The progress made in the past twenty years is amazing. You can go back, and read the history -- of black people in the back of the bus, of women fired when they became pregnant, of gay people ostracized. And it's not like that today, mostly.

We have progressed. We are getting there. We must not despair. The current president is over 70. He is the last president we will have like this. All we have to do is survive him.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mdijon--

If you want to start a new thread, please do. Thx. [Smile]

I went ahead and started
"Medical treatment--who gets what, who decides, who pays?" (Purg).

I've copied the Charlie Gard discussion from here to there.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
...
Apart from privacy concerns, what's the problem? I've read the article, and don't see any other issue.

The purpose is voter intimidation. When Simon Toad shows up to vote in Nevada, some "poll watcher" will say, "Wait a sec, there's a Simon Toad registered in Virginia, and another in Oregon, and three in New York. And one has the same birthday as you, and another has the same last four digits in his SSN as you. Let's see forty-three pieces of ID. Got any proof you used to live in Virginia? How do we know you didn't vote three times in New York already? VOTER FRAUD!!!!!" Of course, none of this has anything to do with the fact that Simon Toad is registered in Nevada as a Democrat ...

And yes, of course these people know that in a country of over 300 million people and only 365 days in a year, lots of people have the same birthday. You only have to look in the phone book - remember that? - to discover how common duplicate names are. If I've done my math right, up to 100,000 SSNs can have the same last 4 digits as mine. That's not the point. The point is to feign ignorance of basic math, create the myth that there are millions of people voting illegally, and justify voter suppression efforts.

sure. But that info is there anyway for collation. And do people really challenge you at the ballot box? I have never heard of that happening in Australia. I understand that there is a long history of attempts to stop people voting in the USA, but no party official can be within cooee of a voting booth here, and if someone tried to stop someone else voting, the electoral officials would deal with them PDQ.

We also don't have a weaver of the dark arts like Roger Stone to worry about. Fair dinkum, that bloke looks like he's dead, but found a way to resurrect himself. He just has to keep his body very cold or he will spontaneously liquefy.

My major point is that if someone in a foreign call centre can cold-call me on the phone and ask for me by name, then the privacy battle is lost. That said, Government is the proper place for the collation and analysis of information on its citizenry, not Google or any of a plethora of private companies. That I receive at least one call a day from India or the Philippines asking to speak to Mr Toad is evidence that the Private Sector simply cannot be trusted in this area.

Trump is of his time and place, but Australia has its share of similar characters. One was
Joh a conservative Premier of Queensland for over 20 years, lampooned hard and often, despised by the left and a wrecker of right-wing PM ambition. He got off corruption charges because one juror was a hard-core fan and hung the jury.

I vividly remember one American woman saying "He says what I think." about Trump, and I think that's the key to his appeal. It's not actually his words, but the values he projects: the values of our sexist, racist, cut-through-the-bullshit past. My Dad would vote for him, if he was still alive and an American. He had a Joh for PM sticker on our family car. Trump voters, I think, are bathed in the same cultural influences as me.

How do you change their votes? You gotta get next to them, have fun with them, be one of them and lay off the criticism.

Or you could try to swamp them...

Anyway, I damn well hope that Democrat strategists have a much better idea than me.

[ 02. July 2017, 04:36: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I don't think I have been nice and quiet. It is not my nature. Polite? As a tool.

I doubt if anyone has ever been converted, when confronted with their homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. Remember that it is a secret ballot in this country. You can go into the voting booth and vote for the bigot if you like, and no one will ever know. Confront them, nicely or not. Will it make a difference?

I take hope in the general trend of society. We can look at the world (those of us who are old enough) and see how it has changed, in our lifetimes. You can still -be- racist. But you have difficulty now, saying it aloud, acting casually about it, paying your black employees less than your white ones. Or look at gay and lesbian issues. The progress made in the past twenty years is amazing. You can go back, and read the history -- of black people in the back of the bus, of women fired when they became pregnant, of gay people ostracized. And it's not like that today, mostly.

We have progressed. We are getting there. We must not despair. The current president is over 70. He is the last president we will have like this. All we have to do is survive him.

I agree, there are fewer and fewer young racist, homophobic misogynistic isolationists. We live in an interconnected world and young people more so. The OOO is the end of the line, the last of the dinosaurs.

I am also with you in finding humour in the situation wherever it is to be found. If we didn't laugh we'd cry.

Laughter is a great healer even when it's ironic and sarcastic in nature.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I hope you are right. But my impression is that prejudices, whether learned or innate, die hard. Also, there seems to me to be a "lemming dimension" at work in social media. Sometimes that is marshalled in support of good causes, sometimes the group think can be aggressive, unfair, unpleasant.

Eutychus is right; it's not a good idea to be complacent about the inevitable twilight of Trump. Much as I wish otherwise, realpolitik suggests to me that there is unlikely to be a Watergate Mark 2 in his immediate future.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Yesterday he spoke at a convention of fans -- veterans and evangelicals -- (he feeds on these rallies like a vampire) and got a cheering, standing ovation for shouting, "The media tried to stop me but I'm president and they're not!"
Nelson Muntz
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yesterday he spoke at a convention of fans -- veterans and evangelicals -- (he feeds on these rallies like a vampire) and got a cheering, standing ovation for shouting, "The media tried to stop me but I'm president and they're not!"
Nelson Muntz

Yep, all despots love their rallies. How long, 'tho, can he use 'fake news' and 'fraud news' before the cheering fans realise the emperor has no clothes?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yesterday he spoke at a convention of fans -- veterans and evangelicals -- (he feeds on these rallies like a vampire) and got a cheering, standing ovation for shouting, "The media tried to stop me but I'm president and they're not!"
Nelson Muntz

Yep, all despots love their rallies. How long, 'tho, can he use 'fake news' and 'fraud news' before the cheering fans realise the emperor has no clothes?
Indefinitely. These are the people who wouldn't abandon him if he murdered someone in front of their very eyes. No amount of "evidence" is going to change their minds.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't arrive at by reason.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I don't think I have been nice and quiet. It is not my nature. Polite? As a tool.

Excellent. But far too many others have been nice, polite, and quiet. I have been, more than I care to admit. I'm sure I'm not alone.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I doubt if anyone has ever been converted, when confronted with their homophobia, sexism, racism, etc.

I not only share your doubt, I'm sure you're right. That's not the point of speaking up, though; in these situations, there are usually others within earshot, some of whom are quietly wrestling with the "Should I speak up?" question. They need to know they're not alone; they need to hear various ways of defending the "liberal" view; they need to be encouraged to speak up too.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Remember that it is a secret ballot in this country. You can go into the voting booth and vote for the bigot if you like, and no one will ever know. Confront them, nicely or not. Will it make a difference?

What I'm sure of is the result of not speaking up enough. We're living it. The mainstream media is no longer trusted, and when it presents facts that seem to support the liberal case, many people reject not only the message, but the messenger. People do still sometimes listen to their friends and neighbors, though. Ordinary liberal-in-the-street voters need to give folks more to listen to.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I take hope in the general trend of society. We can look at the world (those of us who are old enough) and see how it has changed, in our lifetimes. You can still -be- racist. But you have difficulty now, saying it aloud, acting casually about it, paying your black employees less than your white ones. Or look at gay and lesbian issues. The progress made in the past twenty years is amazing. You can go back, and read the history -- of black people in the back of the bus, of women fired when they became pregnant, of gay people ostracized. And it's not like that today, mostly.

Yes, there's been progress. That progress is currently under attack on many fronts.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We have progressed. We are getting there. We must not despair. The current president is over 70. He is the last president we will have like this. All we have to do is survive him.

I am older than the current president; what has age to do with anything? Worse, he has already done substantial damage and will continue to do more. Hate crimes are up across the country. Groups espousing assorted hateful platforms are openly recruiting and demonstrating. I have students in their late teens-early 20s who complain that I restrict their speech freedoms when I kick them out of class for using the "n-word" and other slurs. We all operate at least partially on the experiences we have. What I take hope from is the bare fact that 44.3 was put in office by a minority of the electorate.

It was not a small enough minority. We actively need to shrink it further.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The other day I stood at the Bus Stop with another of The Glums, a chap aged around 75. His 'conversation' usually slags off everybody from God downwards, but last week he really pissed me off by blaming 'Muslims' for just about all the ills of the world.

Fortunately, some friends arrived at the Bus Stop shortly before the Bus came along, so I was able to escape from the rant. If it happens again, I shall politely tell him that I Don't Talk To Racists.

And leave him to fulminate, rant, swear etc. as he will. His problem, not mine.

(I've done this sort of thing before at Bus Stops, BTW. Roll on the day when I get my driving licence back*. I think.)

IJ

*I had to hand it over to the DVLA when I started to have epileptic fits, due to a brain tumour. Clear of fits for over a year now! [Yipee] )
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I an not convinced that this man isn't a natural heir to twice-born George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The followers of an eroticized Plato are in a battle with religionists: they can't share anything anymore. Many seem to have conversations with Jesus, mistaking their fears for Other. Religion certainly isn't an opiate, it isn't even a comfort. Their bible is a wicked book, read as a pornography of domination. Conversion of this trump man? conversion to what exactly? The American religion?

Does anyone else remember Spinoza? who instructed us how necessary it is to love God withour expecting God to love us in return. A very unAmerican idea; some 90% believe God loves them on a personal basis and they talk to their Jesus daily. No servants here.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The other day I stood at the Bus Stop with another of The Glums, a chap aged around 75. His 'conversation' usually slags off everybody from God downwards, but last week he really pissed me off by blaming 'Muslims' for just about all the ills of the world.

Fortunately, some friends arrived at the Bus Stop shortly before the Bus came along, so I was able to escape from the rant. If it happens again, I shall politely tell him that I Don't Talk To Racists.

I wonder how helpful it is to take this approach: tell ranters “I don’t talk to racists (sexists, etc., fill in as appropriate).” It isolates the ranters, sure; but is that what we need to do?

Personally, I think my own views over the decades have been heavily-influenced by the sense that I belong to some (probably VERY loosely-defined) like-minded community with a base of shared values. As ranters begin to perceive that fewer and fewer people agree with them, at least a few of them will begin to wonder about the views they’ve held, and may begin to question these views.

I was once convinced (several decades ago) that sexual minorities were mentally ill; I found the (then) mental health professionals’ consensus persuasive. Following the ongoing discussion of “Is it or isn’t it MI?”, working with, and getting to know, people who belonged to those minorities changed my mind. It took a while. It was a process. I now understand how woefully wrong, and how profoundly damaging, the views I once held are.

I wonder if it might be possible to ask the Muslim ranter if he knows anybody who’s a Muslim? When he says, as he’s likely to, “No,” ask him if he shouldn’t at least get to know a couple of the folks he’s publicly badmouthing, so as to give them a fair chance to defend themselves. How does he know, after all, that he’s not speaking to a Muslim?

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
And leave him to fulminate, rant, swear etc. as he will. His problem, not mine.

Is it? You're in the UK, I believe; what do you think of your current government? Whose votes brought that about? And isn't it now Your Problem, as a result? That's how I'm feeling about my current government.

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Clear of fits for over a year now! [Yipee] )

Congratulations, and may it be ever so!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, points taken - but I'm afraid that too much exposure to stress (e.g. trying to argue with a Muslim-hater) is likely to bring on an Addison's Crisis, which I can ill afford. Simply refusing to engage, and walking away, is the best solution for me , though I agree that that might not be the same for others.

As regards our 'government' (if Rule By Headless Chickens can be so described), I voted Labour, FWIW, despite being a paid-up member of another left-wing party of (sadly) smaller dimensions.

IJ
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
This thread may need a slightly lighter moment. If we had a collection of Trumps, what would be the collective noun?

A cabal of trumps

An idiocy of Trumps (even one will do)

An embarrassment of Trumps (ditto)

A criminality of Trumps

Likewise, if we had a social medium just for Trump, what should it be called?

Blither (one sends out Bleats)

Me Central

Dumb yahoo
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
'A Tragedy of Trumps' seems not too harsh a term....

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
A twitter of trumps. (too easy)

A bigly of trumps?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Ohher (and others) -

I think it's a major mistake to focus on the racism, sexism and homophobia. Trump's people by and large don't think those matter (or agree with him). ANd the task is to move his people away from him, not reinforce the beliefs of the people who didn't and won't vote for him in any circumstance.

Remember, he won his electoral votes in states badly damaged economically. The votes that swung the key states to him were people who were hurting because of lost jobs and no economic future they could foretell. And they blamed the "government", "liberals" and the democrats because all the nice liberal people who believed in free trade and such didn't bother to explain how ordinary people were actually benefitting from those policies -- if they were (which no one bothered to discuss either). The nice liberal people just assumed that everyone would benefit, that everyone had benefitted and that if anyone doubted, all they had to do was take their word for it and stop thinking about it.

(Not unlike the anti-Brexiteers, IMO, but I digress.)

These people were hurting, and Trump offered to fix their problems. That he's almost certainly totally wrong doesn't matter -- they think he's right, because if he's right he can fix it.

If the Democrats want the hurting states to go their way, they've got to address what the people in those states think is the problem. And when you've no job, no prospect of a job, and a future of unrelieved misery, you are probably not going to be put off voting for someone who seems to have an answer when no-one else does because of all those liberal things he (and you) doesn't believe or care about.

John
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Ohher (and others) -

I think it's a major mistake to focus on the racism, sexism and homophobia. Trump's people by and large don't think those matter (or agree with him). ANd the task is to move his people away from him, not reinforce the beliefs of the people who didn't and won't vote for him in any circumstance.

Remember, he won his electoral votes in states badly damaged economically. The votes that swung the key states to him were people who were hurting because of lost jobs and no economic future they could foretell. And they blamed the "government", "liberals" and the democrats because all the nice liberal people who believed in free trade and such didn't bother to explain how ordinary people were actually benefitting from those policies -- if they were (which no one bothered to discuss either). The nice liberal people just assumed that everyone would benefit, that everyone had benefitted and that if anyone doubted, all they had to do was take their word for it and stop thinking about it.

(Not unlike the anti-Brexiteers, IMO, but I digress.)

These people were hurting, and Trump offered to fix their problems. That he's almost certainly totally wrong doesn't matter -- they think he's right, because if he's right he can fix it.

If the Democrats want the hurting states to go their way, they've got to address what the people in those states think is the problem. And when you've no job, no prospect of a job, and a future of unrelieved misery, you are probably not going to be put off voting for someone who seems to have an answer when no-one else does because of all those liberal things he (and you) doesn't believe or care about.

John

Many excellent points. I wonder, though, if it's "the government, liberals, and Democrats" who are getting blamed. When I engage with Trumpists from this hurting category (there's a serious dearth of jobs in the northern part of my state), I hear blame getting laid at the door of "!@&%$! immigrants." (This state has a small black population, largely settled near our southern border. We've also received a substantial (given our small, rural population) inflow of refugees in recent years.) Hence, my conviction we need to sway people away from isms.

Interestingly, 8 of the 10 cities with the worst unemployment currently are in California, which went for Clinton. The counties where those cities are located went narrowly for Trump.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
When I engage with Trumpists from this hurting category (there's a serious dearth of jobs in the northern part of my state), I hear blame getting laid at the door of "!@&%$! immigrants."

I don't think you will be successful at persuading these people (who think they have no work because immigrants are taking their jobs) that they are being racist, and that they should love their immigrants.

Most of this sort of person is likely to tell you that he doesn't have anything against [people of a different skin tone or cultural background] but that the jobs should go to the people who are [here] already, rather than bringing in more people.

On the other hand, "we understand that you are hurting. Here are some concrete plans to bring more jobs to your area" is a pitch you can sell.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
This thread may need a slightly lighter moment.

As posted earlier, if you take that line, you have basically fallen for the Trump presidency cast as entertainment (as well as mistaking Purgatory for Heaven), and as you appear to be a US voter, I fear you are sleepwalking your way to another GOP victory in 2020.

Listen rather to John Holding, and do something useful about it.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If we had a collection of Trumps, what would be the collective noun?

Considering what trump means in Scots slang (so I'm told), a privy of Trumps.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Okay, a lighter moment....

...both Yahweh and Satan are scratching their heads, giving puzzled looks to each other at this point.
Yahweh: You're certain he's not one of yours? Because I didn't make him.
Satan: Please. Give me some credit. Even I have standards.
Yahweh: Buddha? Brahma?
Both shrug their shoulders.
Satan: Gaia?
Gaia: glowers

Satan: Right right. Sorry. Forgot about the "pussy grabbing" thing.
Yahweh: Cthulhu?
Cthulhu: What kind of monster do you take me for? sips tea

Satan: Well, someone cooked him up.
Flying Spaghetti Monster: ...
Yahweh: Wait...there is no way you could...
Flying Spaghetti Monster: Look...it was my first time. I was a little drunk and someone asked for a "Tangerine Dream" so I thought...
Satan: facepalms. Fucking newbies...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A twitter of trumps. (too easy)

A bigly of trumps?

An apocalypse of trump-aster
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Does anyone else remember Spinoza? who instructed us how necessary it is to love God without expecting God to love us in return.

Okay, I am utterly confused. How the hell does one love God without expecting (hoping?) him to love us in--well, not return, in the first place, at least according to John--"We love God, because he first loved us."

No doubt I'm missing something deep.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Look, if you really, really want to convert a Trumpist, it's gonna hurt. Because you are going to have to get to know that person and love them to the point where you know what it is like to be that person, to suffer as they suffer and to fear as they fear. And then to do what lies in you to help with that suffering.

That's gonna suck. But you aren't going to convert them by keeping them at arm's distance. You aren't going to do it by mere words. And nobody's going to do it by bitching at them.

Trust me. I have Trumpists in my family, yea, verily, and it sucketh mightily. But any other approach beareth no fruit.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Does anyone else remember Spinoza? who instructed us how necessary it is to love God without expecting God to love us in return.

Okay, I am utterly confused. How the hell does one love God without expecting (hoping?) him to love us in--well, not return, in the first place, at least according to John--"We love God, because he first loved us."

No doubt I'm missing something deep.

"But America isn't very Jobean" (Harold Bloom, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found)
Spinoza wanted to unpin "chosen people" BS (among other purposes). Thus, either everyone is chosen or no one is, one human family, no national or personal exceptionalism, no nation nor cities on hills, no nations under (nor over) God. So no, God doesn't love anyone 'in return', nor is Jesus likely to hold personal conversation, with you, me, the pope, saint anyone, and not politicians.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. But the problem for me is that I'm not an American exceptionalist, nor an anywhere exceptionalist for that matter, and yet I don't think that God has withdrawn himself from human beings. I'd be happy to say "everyone is chosen"--I suppose that's a version of "everyone is special"--and I'm good with that. Christ died and rose for all. But I don't think God is impersonal, or uninterested, or distant from human beings of any type. And I'm sure he cares more for people than for nations or other political constructs.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I believe that the only man who can turn the true believers away from him is the man himself. Health insurance reform may well do it; the states that supported him are going to lose millions of dollars. People will die. And their survivors are not going to blame the Democrats or Obama or Hillary or Nancy Pelosi. They're going to blame the president, the man in charge. The buck does stop there.
It will call for blood, and alas, it will be the blood of the innocent.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look, if you really, really want to convert a Trumpist, it's gonna hurt. Because you are going to have to get to know that person and love them to the point where you know what it is like to be that person, to suffer as they suffer and to fear as they fear. And then to do what lies in you to help with that suffering.

That's gonna suck. But you aren't going to convert them by keeping them at arm's distance. You aren't going to do it by mere words. And nobody's going to do it by bitching at them.

Trust me. I have Trumpists in my family, yea, verily, and it sucketh mightily. But any other approach beareth no fruit.

Yep. I have a Trumpist in my family, too, and she isn't even hurting. She's just gulped down the "It's the Muslims - Mexicans - feminazis - tree-huggers" koolaid. She lives in the Southwest, where she KNOWS all the Mexicans are lazy, here illegally, don't know any English, and get under-paid under the table when they work for her.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe that the only man who can turn the true believers away from him is the man himself. Health insurance reform may well do it; the states that supported him are going to lose millions of dollars. People will die. And their survivors are not going to blame the Democrats or Obama or Hillary or Nancy Pelosi. They're going to blame the president, the man in charge. The buck does stop there.
It will call for blood, and alas, it will be the blood of the innocent.

The pundits that these people trust are already blaming the Democrats for all these things, and the faithful are lapping it up like milk. Hell, these pundits blamed the 2008 bank collapse and 9/11 on Obama, and the faithful lapped it up. Facts don't matter if the Trusted Ones say something. The Trusted Ones are trusted. End of.

[ 03. July 2017, 01:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
No point thinking about the rusted-ons, from a strategy perspective...

Anyway, I got an email today from Mrs Lady Melania Trump. I didn't open it of course. She's a noted phisher. And as Miles Jupp would say, 'she's no lady' [Yipee]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The pundits that these people trust are already blaming the Democrats for all these things, and the faithful are lapping it up like milk.... The Trusted Ones are trusted. End of.

It is remarkable to watch the pundits and WH spokespeople responding over the unhinged tweets. Apparently those tweets are all the fault of the mainstream fake media a) for provoking the President in the first place (what a chillingly familiar argument that is) and b) for covering the President's tweets in the second place.

And people seem to buy this. Watching the news it seems really scarily polarized, where the mentality is almost war-zone level paranoia vs the other. I don't know if it is that stark on the ground.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look, if you really, really want to convert a Trumpist, it's gonna hurt. Because you are going to have to get to know that person and love them to the point where you know what it is like to be that person, to suffer as they suffer and to fear as they fear. And then to do what lies in you to help with that suffering.

Nah, people like trump feel entirely entitled to that love, but they'll always expect more - nothing is ever enough. The tiniest criticism is taken very badly and met with petulance. They don't need you to suffer with them, they need to wake up.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Yep. Tough love; I love you so much that I'm simply not going to allow you to walk all over the weakest in society. I'm going to love you so much that I'm not going to allow the blackness deep inside you to infect society. I'm going to love you so much that I'm not going to allow you to destroy the freedoms that you enjoy as much as the rest of us.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Facts don't matter if the Trusted Ones say something. The Trusted Ones are trusted. End of.

That really is very good. A real summary of the dilemma we face. Not too dissimilar to that faced by parents and friends of those entrapped in cults.

We might wait a long time for disillusionment to dawn. Trump's supporters are invested in him.

Interesting discussion on BBC Radio 4 this morning on the importance for the Democrats of finding positive alternatives to the Trump messages which attracted folks to vote for him. A purely negative message (e.g. Trump is awful and I'm going to vote to impeach him for profiteering from his office and colluding with the Russians) seems unlikely to win the Democrats the House in 2018.

Plus they need an outstanding presidential candidate for 2020. Soon.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's what I keep saying.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look, if you really, really want to convert a Trumpist, it's gonna hurt. Because you are going to have to get to know that person and love them to the point where you know what it is like to be that person, to suffer as they suffer and to fear as they fear. And then to do what lies in you to help with that suffering.

That's gonna suck. But you aren't going to convert them by keeping them at arm's distance. You aren't going to do it by mere words. And nobody's going to do it by bitching at them.

Trust me. I have Trumpists in my family, yea, verily, and it sucketh mightily. But any other approach beareth no fruit.

This cuts unfortunately close to the bone. Feels like an austere ignition retreat. Something to pray on
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look, if you really, really want to convert a Trumpist, it's gonna hurt. Because you are going to have to get to know that person and love them to the point where you know what it is like to be that person, to suffer as they suffer and to fear as they fear. And then to do what lies in you to help with that suffering.

Nah, people like trump feel entirely entitled to that love, but they'll always expect more - nothing is ever enough. The tiniest criticism is taken very badly and met with petulance. They don't need you to suffer with them, they need to wake up.
This is why you're never going to get anywhere with Trumpists (didn't say "Trump," he's a whole different ball of psych problems himself). Trumpists, I said. Who are, at base, human beings, just as you are. Who have the same brokenness that you have. Who are just as stubborn and ornery as we all are. Who are just as likely to dig their feet in and behave mulishly as any other members of the human race, except if somebody bothers to come close to them, listen, care, be with, and generally love them.

Nobody converts because other people are bashing them on the head. At most you'll get fake conversion followed by immediate reversion (much stronger now). At worst... let's just not go there. Four more years of Trump doesn't bear thinking about.

"They ought to wake up"--well, and why are they not doing so, then? Are you saying they are somehow innately more stupid, less human, or what? Think it through. There is some bloody strong thing that's stopping them from seeing what is so obvious to you and to many others. It must be something powerful, if it's taking this long for them to "wake up". Are you going to stand at a distance and watch your brothers and sisters (yes, they are, don't deny it!) stay victim to whatever-the-hell-it-is? lecture them from afar? leave them to deal with it on their own, when demonstrably they haven't got the first clue what's wrong or even that something is wrong in the first place?

I've been in a form of service that involves encouraging conversion of various sorts for oh, thirty-some years now. I've never ever seen a person convert because they were being mocked, ridiculed, or yelled at. I've seen quite a few convert after* someone who was already in the light took the time and trouble to come alongside them, to listen, to love, to be humble, to try to understand, and to help where indicated. It's effective. Not cheap, but effective. But it costs blood, sweat, and tears, to steal a phrase.

*I'm not talking from a human standpoint at the moment; the Holy Spirit is of course the great confounding factor. But he usually seems to follow these lines too.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A purely negative message (e.g. Trump is awful and I'm going to vote to impeach him for profiteering from his office and colluding with the Russians) seems unlikely to win the Democrats the House in 2018.

Plus they need an outstanding presidential candidate for 2020. Soon.

I know one former First Lady was defeated (by Trump of all people) but shouldn't the Democrat bigwigs call the immediate former First Lady and sound her out? On a basis of "Your country and the rest of the planet needs you".
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I think they already have and she says she doesn't want the job. She claims not to have the temperament for it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Think it through. There is some bloody strong thing that's stopping them from seeing what is so obvious to you and to many others. It must be something powerful, if it's taking this long for them to "wake up". Are you going to stand at a distance and watch your brothers and sisters (yes, they are, don't deny it!) stay victim to whatever-the-hell-it-is? lecture them from afar? leave them to deal with it on their own, when demonstrably they haven't got the first clue what's wrong or even that something is wrong in the first place?

Yes.

I'm going to stand at a distance and wait for them to wake up.

It's a lot like an alcoholic or addict or a member of a cult. Until they want to come out/get free any support is enabling their behaviour. It is also harming the enabler who could be usefully, effectively supporting others.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From la vie en rouge:

I think they already have and she says she doesn't want the job. She claims not to have the temperament for it.

Maybe not, but......yes, she's too nice, and cool....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3wAdRAim4

[Waterworks]

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think they already have and she says she doesn't want the job. She claims not to have the temperament for it.

That didn't stop the present office holder from running.

But then he's just a modern presidential temperament.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Think it through. There is some bloody strong thing that's stopping them from seeing what is so obvious to you and to many others. It must be something powerful, if it's taking this long for them to "wake up". Are you going to stand at a distance and watch your brothers and sisters (yes, they are, don't deny it!) stay victim to whatever-the-hell-it-is? lecture them from afar? leave them to deal with it on their own, when demonstrably they haven't got the first clue what's wrong or even that something is wrong in the first place?

Yes.

I'm going to stand at a distance and wait for them to wake up.

It's a lot like an alcoholic or addict or a member of a cult. Until they want to come out/get free any support is enabling their behaviour. It is also harming the enabler who could be usefully, effectively supporting others.

Are they really open to being corrected? Can they hear anyone who disagrees with them without shooting them down (figuratively)? I am unconvinced.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Why do you have to convert the ardent Trumpists? I can't see that - it's the swing voters that are the target, isn't it? In the UK, the left does not tend to target ardent right-wing people, but people in the centre, who may vote Tory or Labour.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why do you have to convert the ardent Trumpists? I can't see that - it's the swing voters that are the target, isn't it? In the UK, the left does not tend to target ardent right-wing people, but people in the centre, who may vote Tory or Labour.

Yes - those who voted for trump but now wonder why they did so. There will be plenty, as with Brexit. I suspect my brother was one of the people who voted Brexit as a protest and now regrets it. He hasn't said but, reading between the lines I think this is the case.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
From la vie en rouge:

I think they already have and she says she doesn't want the job. She claims not to have the temperament for it.

Maybe not, but......yes, she's too nice, and cool....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3wAdRAim4

[Waterworks]

IJ

Considering candidates' suitability on the basis of their "niceness" or "coolness" (or "guts" or "toughness", delete as applicable) is part of what has got the US into this mess in the first place.

I'm reading this week's Economist's special report on Trump's America, and fascinating reading it is too.

Insights include findings that only about one fifth of Americans take an interest in politics at all, fewer than one tenth of voters for either historic party have ever attended a political meeting or campaign (94% of Trump voters and 90% of Clinton voters never have); that rather than examine candidates and choose one on the basis of their personal convictions, voters appear to choose a politician for emotional reasons and then adjust their political convictions to what they think, often incorrectly, their chosen candidates stand for (IIRC some 24% of all voters do not know which party is the more conservative of the two).

One of the most striking findings is not that 31% of Republican voters believe the government probably or certainly had prior knowledge of 9/11 - but that 36% of Democrat voters do.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Why do you have to convert the ardent Trumpists? I can't see that - it's the swing voters that are the target, isn't it? In the UK, the left does not tend to target ardent right-wing people, but people in the centre, who may vote Tory or Labour.

Yes - those who voted for trump but now wonder why they did so. There will be plenty, as with Brexit. I suspect my brother was one of the people who voted Brexit as a protest and now regrets it. He hasn't said but, reading between the lines I think this is the case.
Well, it's said that Labour managed to woo back some UKIP voters, and didn't do it through attacking them. In fact, they offered a kind of strange ambiguity over Brexit, that may have attracted both sides.

But I would not go out to canvas Monday Club people, (very right wing). There's no point.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

I've been in a form of service that involves encouraging conversion of various sorts for oh, thirty-some years now. I've never ever seen a person convert because they were being mocked, ridiculed, or yelled at. I've seen quite a few convert after* someone who was already in the light took the time and trouble to come alongside them, to listen, to love, to be humble, to try to understand, and to help where indicated. It's effective. Not cheap, but effective. But it costs blood, sweat, and tears, to steal a phrase.


Sorry about the above; the software wouldn't let me delete or edit.

It's worth talking with people in ways that encourage them to pay at least as much attention to what's actually, personally, going on for them as all the scary stuff they see in the media. I've been astonished to see how many people blame "immigrants" for the no-work situation when first asked, and then gradually, once you ask them to think about their own lives, come to see that the paper mills shut down because of robotization, or decrepit equipment or bad management or new logging restrictions, etc. etc.

The other issues are that people resent change; they want the old One-Job-For-Life model, which our economy no longer supports. They also sometimes find it more important to Lay Blame rather than Find Solutions, because that's a second job on top of the ones they're already coping with. It's useful to go over how other people are responding to the crisis.

ETA: "the above" was taken care of. Thanks, kind host!

[ 03. July 2017, 17:57: Message edited by: Ohher ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One of the most striking findings is not that 31% of Republican voters believe the government probably or certainly had prior knowledge of 9/11 - but that 36% of Democrat voters do.

I don't think that's so much a "finding" as it is a poll result for which the Economist doesn't even reproduce the full question; it's less striking when you consider that respondents may simply be recalling the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, titled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That was the most in-yer-face result of the poll, but hardly the most relevant one of those I cited.

I think that above all, the results suggest a lot more thought is needed into just how to go about getting Trump out of the White House than simply hand-wringing over his abuse of animated gifs, thinking up new names to call him, or pointing out that he's a misogynist.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I think the notion that 44.3 can be got out of the White House before 2020 is pure fantasy. Until or unless he does something which imperils 2018 election outcomes for Republicans (and even his most egregious antics have failed to do this), we're stuck with him until he's (please, God) voted out in November of 2020. (God help us if he isn't. Eight years of this? {{{Shudders}}}

In the meantime, we need to find a candidate, and/or possibly even some political parties, capable of being responsible, and responsive, and also inspiring of trust and support.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Right now I would put money on him winning again in 2020 due to an apparent lack of all the things you mention.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That was the most in-yer-face result of the poll, but hardly the most relevant one of those I cited.

OK, I'll bite - which one was the most relevant?
quote:
I think that above all, the results suggest a lot more thought is needed into just how to go about getting Trump out of the White House than simply hand-wringing over his abuse of animated gifs, thinking up new names to call him, or pointing out that he's a misogynist.
There are a lot of people in the US whose job it is to think of ways to oppose the Republicans in general and Trump in particular, but they're probably not CC'ing us on their strategic emails.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's a lot like an alcoholic or addict or a member of a cult.

The last lie a junkie tells himself isn't "I’m not an addict."

The last lie a junkie tells himself is "My being a addict doesn't matter."

 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Very interesting set of posts on this page. Thanks to all who are contributing.

I reckon that Lamb Chopped isn't so much offering a solution to the question of how the Democrats win the next election as how does the United States overcome/lessen its deep political division in a sustainable way?

Winning elections is much more cynical. You don't need hearts and minds, you need people marking your name on a ballot on one day. That requires organisation. Basic stuff. Transport to the polls, a deniable inducement like a big smile and small favours over a long period, and having people in every community who are well-known, liked, and work hard.

On a national level, a fair dinkum scare campaign really works. In Australia, any suggestion of an American-style health care system works a treat. Anyway, I'm selling coal to Newcastle here.

NEVER talk about actual ideas, unless they are populist ideas. I'm hoping that might be large-scale re-nationalisation of formerly public utilities might be one of those in Australia soon. (Go Corbyn you game-changing champion). I'm not sure how that would go down stateside (lie).

DON'T try to convince people of stuff unless it is an opinion-leader - one of your true believers. Let your community people do the hard yakka there, and they won't be pushing the idea, but the emotion.

This post has been bought to you by the Nhilist School of Politics, and is copyright R. Stone (dec.) and K. Conway (v.scary smart person).

KEY MESSAGE: HIDE YOUR IDEALS, SMILE and DO FAVOURS.

[ 04. July 2017, 03:21: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

This post has been bought to you by the Nhilist School of Politics, and is copyright R. Stone (dec.) and K. Conway (v.scary smart person).


Hmmm. Tangential, perhaps, but I have wondered this about the Mistress of Alternative Facts. Do you think she's actually smart? The v. scary part I'm in full agreement with. But if Kellyanne were actually smart, surely she could craft lies that were not quite so instantly and blatantly detectable?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That was the most in-yer-face result of the poll, but hardly the most relevant one of those I cited.

OK, I'll bite - which one was the most relevant?
I think the fact that 9/10 of respondents said they have never attended a political meeting or rally.
quote:
There are a lot of people in the US whose job it is to think of ways to oppose the Republicans in general and Trump in particular, but they're probably not CC'ing us on their strategic emails.
I generally find the Ship to be a place where original, constructive ideas are to be found. But when it comes to the aftermath of the US presidential election, I think those opposing Trump have focused to an unhealthy degree on the kind of thing I listed above.

Besides, you kind of make my point for me. "Opposing the Republicans" and/or Trump is a whole different kettle of fish from standing for something and having a roadmap on how to get there.

To take just one example, it's far too late to keep repeating that Clinton won the popular vote (I hardly think this would have been a loudly trumpeted concern for most here had Trump won it and lost the electoral college vote). It's this kind of stuck-in-2016 thinking that is in danger of allowing the GOP to win in 2020 - Trump is campaigning and fund-raising already, in case you hadn't noticed.

The challenge right now is to work out how the electoral college vote can be won under the existing rules.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Right now I would put money on him winning again in 2020 due to an apparent lack of all the things you mention.

I would put money on him not being well enough.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
How likely do you think it is that there will be a 2020 election rather than, say, some kind of state of emergency in response to a perceived threat ?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I would certainly put ill health ahead of any other reason for Trump not winning again in 2020.

I don't know enough about US constitutional matters to predict the scope of emergency powers with any certainty, but I suspect (hope?) that cancelling a presidential election on emergency grounds is still in tinfoil hat territory.

As I see it, as of today the GOP is quite capable of winning in 2020 without resorting to such tactics.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
This is probably an unfair reading of your post above Eutychus, but I found it interesting/instructive/ironic that you mention on the one hand that 9/10 respondents said that they had never attended a political meeting or rally, and on the other that the Democrats need to stand for something if they are going to win the Presidency in 2020.

My understanding of the "How to win from Opposition" book is that you relentlessly point to the Government's weaknesses for as long as humanly possible and then release your policy manifesto as close as you can to the date of the election so the Govt has very little time to turn the media spotlight your way.

Gotta run. I disagree with the idea only eutychus.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
sorry, had to finish that last one quick so I could run down the corridor to greet my wife, dressing-gown flowing majestically behind me a-la Bishop Brennan in Father Ted.

I accept that my ideas on how to do politics are fundamentally evil. It's one of the reasons why I only crap on about it, rather than do it.

Speaking of fundamental evil, yes Other I do think that KAC is a very smart woman who is very good at her job. You have to be extremely strong in your mind and very quick-witted to run PR defence when you have Trump effectively controlling the agenda by refusing to be handled.

I am also coming around to the idea that Trump has street smarts, as they used to say in the 1940's. He knows how to sell stuff to Americans. He is relentlessly focused on his own interest and is unremittingly crass, but he has smarts. His wine is rubbish and his steaks taste like rubber.

With the exception of how he's treated NATO, I also think his administration is doing well on foreign policy. Hell, if they took out Assad and managed the fallout with the Russians, I'd be on my feet clapping. Well, maybe not on my feet but that's because I don't give standing ovations very often. The behavior of Stephen Colbert's audience appalls and disgusts me.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That was the most in-yer-face result of the poll, but hardly the most relevant one of those I cited.

OK, I'll bite - which one was the most relevant?
I think the fact that 9/10 of respondents said they have never attended a political meeting or rally.
And why is that relevant? Do you think it's significantly different from the past, or from other democracies?
quote:
quote:
There are a lot of people in the US whose job it is to think of ways to oppose the Republicans in general and Trump in particular, but they're probably not CC'ing us on their strategic emails.
I generally find the Ship to be a place where original, constructive ideas are to be found. But when it comes to the aftermath of the US presidential election, I think those opposing Trump have focused to an unhealthy degree on the kind of thing I listed above.

Besides, you kind of make my point for me. "Opposing the Republicans" and/or Trump is a whole different kettle of fish from standing for something and having a roadmap on how to get there.

Perhaps, but it's your kettle - I was responding to your comment about "a lot more thought is needed into just how to go about getting Trump out of the White House." Sounds like opposition to Trump to me.
quote:
To take just one example, it's far too late to keep repeating that Clinton won the popular vote (I hardly think this would have been a loudly trumpeted concern for most here had Trump won it and lost the electoral college vote). It's this kind of stuck-in-2016 thinking that is in danger of allowing the GOP to win in 2020 - Trump is campaigning and fund-raising already, in case you hadn't noticed.

The challenge right now is to work out how the electoral college vote can be won under the existing rules.

No kidding? Thanks for that original, constructive idea!

Again - there are many people whose day job it is to come up with electoral strategies, but you're not in communication with any of them here. I don't see any reason to think that those people are fixated on (e.g.) Clinton's share of the popular vote. I don't think your exposure to the venting of a handful of people on a tiny internet forum can really form a justifiable basis for concern about the 2020 presidential election.

I mean, think of all the other things that SoF hasn't figured out: global warming, North Korea, peace in the Middle East... the list is endless. Get to work, people!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I will be happy to be proved wrong.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Dave W [Overused]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
To take just one example, it's far too late to keep repeating that Clinton won the popular vote (I hardly think this would have been a loudly trumpeted concern for most here had Trump won it and lost the electoral college vote). It's this kind of stuck-in-2016 thinking that is in danger of allowing the GOP to win in 2020 - Trump is campaigning and fund-raising already, in case you hadn't noticed.

Actually, it is Trump that is still trying to prove he won the popular vote. He claims 5 billion voters voted illegally. He has set up a presidential review board to prove it. That board has recently asked for detailed information of all registered voters from every state. Fortunately, most states are refusing to provide the information. Some will release what is already publically information. And the ACLU is challenging the request.

The thought is, that the board is actually being set up to push for voter suppression laws on the federal level.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I will be happy to be proved wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying there are no good reasons to be concerned about the state of the American political system or the 2020 election. Far from it! I just don't think the high ratio of puerile insults to sure-fire strategies here on SoF is among them.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I will be happy to be proved wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying there are no good reasons to be concerned about the state of the American political system or the 2020 election. Far from it! I just don't think the high ratio of puerile insults to sure-fire strategies here on SoF is among them.
You may be mistaking blowing off steam for planning. From a human perspective, both are necessary.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I just don't think the high ratio of puerile insults to sure-fire strategies here on SoF is among them.

I'm really worried that the DNC strategy inputs have been diminished by the standard of debate on SoF.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I just don't think the high ratio of puerile insults to sure-fire strategies here on SoF is among them.

I'm really worried that the DNC strategy inputs have been diminished by the standard of debate on SoF.
I'm more worried that Purgatory is becoming Heaven or Hell, to be honest.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm more worried that Purgatory is becoming Heaven or Hell, to be honest.

No fake news here. We throw that overboard.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
So when Trump mocks Kim Jung Un for not having anything "better to do" than launch missiles, is he totally unaware or trolling us all? I'm not entirely sure.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Okay, a lighter moment....

...both Yahweh and Satan are scratching their heads, giving puzzled looks to each other at this point.
Yahweh: You're certain he's not one of yours? Because I didn't make him.
Satan: Please. Give me some credit. Even I have standards.
Yahweh: Buddha? Brahma?
Both shrug their shoulders.
Satan: Gaia?
Gaia: glowers

Satan: Right right. Sorry. Forgot about the "pussy grabbing" thing.
Yahweh: Cthulhu?
Cthulhu: What kind of monster do you take me for? sips tea

Satan: Well, someone cooked him up.
Flying Spaghetti Monster: ...
Yahweh: Wait...there is no way you could...
Flying Spaghetti Monster: Look...it was my first time. I was a little drunk and someone asked for a "Tangerine Dream" so I thought...
Satan: facepalms. Fucking newbies...

[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So when Trump mocks Kim Jung Un for not having anything "better to do" than launch missiles, is he totally unaware or trolling us all? I'm not entirely sure.

He's preaching to his choir.

Eutychus is right I think about reactions to Trump if you direct Euty's* words not to the denizens of this forum but to CNN and some commentators. The reaction to his re-tweeting of that doctored WWF video showing him fighting an embodied CNN logo was idiotic. Trump, Stone and Conway must have laughed so hard that one of Stone's eyes popped out. The idea that re-tweeting that video made journalists less safe really hit the bulls-eye for further alienating everyone who regards 'the media' as the mouthpiece for the hated 'liberal elite'. CNN should have said nothing.

*Unsure of which pronoun to use and 'their' looked ugly. In the modified words of the great '80's transvestite Divine, "I think you're a man but..."

[ 05. July 2017, 01:10: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
No more science for USA. The link goes on to list the morons the head moron has appointed. Pence, Perry, Tillerson and Carson who are all ignorant, antiscience, creationist and oil industry pundits. Carson is the most surprising. Physicians elsewhere have at least some biology.

The G20 meeting starts shortly. Will anyone get punched in the face? and who by whom? Here's hoping.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Carson is the most surprising. Physicians elsewhere have at least some biology.

Carson shocked me with his claims and performance.
This article suggests neurosurgeons needn't be exceptionally smart. I've read another that stated the winnowing process is before they've done surgery. And that, after acceptance into a programme, it is difficult to get rid of them.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Neurosurgeons have no formal examination testing that requires more brains than any other kind of surgeon, or even any other kind of doctor.

There are some technical skills that are required, particularly finely tuned ones in brainstem surgery, for instance, and not so finely tuned for making burr holes in skulls and shelling out blood clots. (There are some jokes about clots on both ends of the surgical instruments). It requires absolute commitment to putting in the hours, gaining the experience, and jumping through hoops, but the academic skills required don't stand out compared to others branches of medicine.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I will be happy to be proved wrong.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying there are no good reasons to be concerned about the state of the American political system or the 2020 election. Far from it! I just don't think the high ratio of puerile insults to sure-fire strategies here on SoF is among them.
At the moment I am more concerned about the Cheeto in Chief thinking that tweeting insults is a good way to respond to North Korea's having successfully tested an ICBM. If he fucks up badly enough there won't be a 2020 election, at least not here on the west coast.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't think your exposure to the venting of a handful of people on a tiny internet forum can really form a justifiable basis for concern about the 2020 presidential election.

At least someone is thinking about Elizabeth Warren for 2020 - oh, wait...
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
At the moment I am more concerned about the Cheeto in Chief thinking that tweeting insults is a good way to respond to North Korea's having successfully tested an ICBM. If he fucks up badly enough there won't be a 2020 election, at least not here on the west coast.

I thought the joint statement from China and Russia suggesting that the US should remove its recently installed missile defence system from South Korea was nicely done. China was very unhappy with that system being installed. I reckon there's going to be more jaw jaw and less war war on this one. That's a position statement, if not an ambit claim.

I saw a PBS Newshour report on the situation, and they were suggesting that when people said that a North Korean ICBM could reach the continental United States they meant the little tiny western tip of Alaska where somebody should drop Sarah Palin.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I've found a Reagan-era Republican who agrees with me.

quote:
Of much more importance in terms of my reluctance to join the Democratic Party is that the party doesn’t really seem to stand for anything other than opposition to the GOP. Admittedly, just about everything the Republicans are doing deserves to be opposed. But the Democrats also need a positive agenda of their own.

 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Like a boatload of other people, that guy is talking about what the Democrats need to do. But he's not predicting Trump will be re-elected. Seeing as it will be 3 1/2 years before Americans go to the polls to make that choice, you're getting way out front of anything currently known facts can support.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
People voted for T-boy because they were worried about the fate of white Christian America. This is a free click. Clearly it was not enough for these people to have a Christian America, the white part is essential. Stick a fork in it, the church is done in this country.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've found a Reagan-era Republican who agrees with me.

quote:
Of much more importance in terms of my reluctance to join the Democratic Party is that the party doesn’t really seem to stand for anything other than opposition to the GOP. Admittedly, just about everything the Republicans are doing deserves to be opposed. But the Democrats also need a positive agenda of their own.

It's the eternal argument, policy v small target strategy. Here, the opposing party and the media will always pester you to release policy detail. Here's why that hasn't happened in Australia for a while.

Back in 1992, the liberals (read conservatives) tried a strategy of campaigning on a major reform to the tax system, a tax on spending called the GST. They announced about a year out from the election that this was their policy, announcing the details as the election got closer.

Despite the fact that he had supported just this policy as Treasurer, the Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating relentlessly attacked the idea, and the media has an extended day out speculating about what would and wouldn't be taxed, and how everything would work.

The Liberals lost that election, an election that was deemed unlosable, and Keating was triumphant, calling those who had supported him during the campaign the 'true believers'.

The liberals spent the rest of the 1990's telling the electorate that the GST was dead, and won government in 1996. They then set about implementing the GST, and it commenced operating in 2000.

It was a very successful and much-needed reform, and there is no opposition to it. People do oppose increases to the rate of GST whenever that is floated on equity grounds, an echo of one plank of the ALP's opposition.

The moral of the story is that if you put up a policy too long before the election, it will be a tattered mess by polling day, whatever its merits. To make controversial policy changes, simply get the reins of power and implement.

I note some differences between the USA and Australia that are relevant in determining strategy:

1. The media environment was not very polarised in Australia in 1993, and while there are indications that might change, it's still not polarised here. I think this is a major difference.

2. Everybody is legally obliged to vote in Australia.

3. The members of the Executive branch of Government must have a seat in the Parliament. Executive Government goes with the control of the lower house of Parliament. This makes it much easier to implement your policies that in the American system.

[ 06. July 2017, 02:49: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Like a boatload of other people, that guy is talking about what the Democrats need to do. But he's not predicting Trump will be re-elected.

Where I found agreement was in that he was saying the Dems need to stand for something and not simply against the Republicans; the article also addresses some of the strategic avenues that could be pursued to that end and which I'm disappointed not to have seen discussed here more.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where I found agreement was in that he was saying the Dems need to stand for something and not simply against the Republicans;

Yes, yes, 1000x yes. I've been saying this. Not only do the Dems need to stand for something, they have got to present it as an intuitable narrative about what American can be, not as a bunch of wonky policy bullet points.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
So NPR did its annual radio reading of our Declaration of Independence yesterday, and added a Twitter version.

And "Trump supporters called it 'propaganda'" (GQ). They didn't recognize it at all, didn't figure "hmm...old-fashioned language, 4th of July, must be one of the founding documents"...
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
And this is a victory for the opposition how, exactly?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Who claimed it was a victory? I'm not following.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Didn't claim it was any kind of victory for anyone. Only possible victory I can see is for people who don't want us to remember that founding stuff, or where we came from. But I didn't even claim that.

It's just ironic, in the American sense.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Somewhere, George III is laughing...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
...and the Founding Fathers have gone off to get drunk.

(I heard they smashed a pub, the night before some big vote, so badly that they had to pay damages.)

And Abigail Adams is saying "if they'd just 'remembered the ladies' in setting up the gov't, as I counseled my husband, this never would've happened".
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So NPR did its annual radio reading of our Declaration of Independence yesterday, and added a Twitter version.

And "Trump supporters called it 'propaganda'" (GQ). They didn't recognize it at all, didn't figure "hmm...old-fashioned language, 4th of July, must be one of the founding documents"...
[Roll Eyes]

I read some of the comments. I think many of them very much understood what document it was. They just thought it was quoted as a political statement against them. Not because they think the document is, but because they think NPR is.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where I found agreement was in that he was saying the Dems need to stand for something and not simply against the Republicans; the article also addresses some of the strategic avenues that could be pursued to that end and which I'm disappointed not to have seen discussed here more.

I'm reminded of this recent exchange:

quote:
@GOP
“We’ve got to fix what’s broken.” Where's your plan, @HillaryClinton?

quote:
@HillaryClinton
Right here. Includes radical provisions like how not to kick 23 mil ppl off their coverage. Feel free to run w/it.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/ …

It seems extra precious to claim that after implementing the most far-reaching American social reform of the past half century the Democrats don't really stand for anything. It's a special kind of rhetorical jiu-jitsu to argue that being against the demolition of an important Democratic achievement means that they're not "for" anything.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As that article says, what is needed is not just good policy wonks but simple, positive articulations of them. Obama obviously had that in spades. The Democrats need to find someone to embody the same sort of thing.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As that article says, what is needed is not just good policy wonks but simple, positive articulations of them. Obama obviously had that in spades. The Democrats need to find someone to embody the same sort of thing.

Are you complaining that the Democrats don't stand for anything or that they don't put on the kind of show you like? I can understand each argument, but they're very different claims.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Hate to make Americans more nervous, but do a search for john oliver sinclair broadcasting
Essentially, a large ultra-conservative media company is set to by many local television stations and force them to run segments that make Fox look like it actually is Fair and Balanced.
So, your everyday news programme will run propaganda between car crashes and cute animals. If you do not think this will have an effect on your next elections...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As that article says, what is needed is not just good policy wonks but simple, positive articulations of them. Obama obviously had that in spades. The Democrats need to find someone to embody the same sort of thing.

Obama "had that in spades" (an unfortunate turn of phase) yet Faux News still managed to convince a significant number of Americans that ACA signaled the treasonous loss of all their freedoms.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I read that article fully Eutychus instead of leaving the page in disgust a few paragraphs in. It's always your enemies that want you to run on policy, and that bloke is no friend of the progressive side of politics. He's not a politician either. He's a policy wonk, and he admits it. Of course policy-wonks want to see the details. Everyone else is happy with the t-shirt.

As far as I'm aware, Republican policy consists of de-regulating to the max, taxing as little as possible, and leaving Americans to flourish or perish as the market wills. They sell it by calling it "Freedom!". That's politics.

B.Bragg sings "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to sell." He's very very wrong about that, but I'm quoting him out of context. Kev Carmody sings, "Freedom equality justice are one. If we resist then justice and freedom will come." I like that better. Democratic policy statement?

Kev Carmody and Tiddas: Freedom

The vid has two nasty jumps in it, but I love Tiddas, so I posted this version anyway.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Are you complaining that the Democrats don't stand for anything or that they don't put on the kind of show you like? I can understand each argument, but they're very different claims.

The opposition I read to Trump is mostly critical of him personally, or of his supporters, which in my view distracts attention from the more important issue of criticism of his policies.

I would prefer to read more constructive criticism of his policies and suggestions for alternatives (perhaps healthcare is the one issue for which this is actually happening, and maybe it will be the one that eventually sinks the GOP ship).

I'm not complaining that the Democrats aren't putting on a show I like, since I don't like shows and don't have a US vote, but I think that positive policy aims need to be presented in an appealing way.

The Trump supporters' criticism of Democrats that I read on other fora that makes the most sense to me is "we won. Get over it". I'd like to see more forward-looking arguments.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Healthcare is a good example of how Trump can make himself less open to attack on policy grounds. He makes a plethora of vague statements, talks about how complicated it is, and when it goes badly he uses an ally in the media to make sure he doesn't get the blame. Sack Paul Ryan, they cried! Nobody blamed Trump on the right, least of all himself, when the House Bill hit a speed-bump.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Trump supporters' criticism of Democrats that I read on other fora that makes the most sense to me is "we won. Get over it". I'd like to see more forward-looking arguments.

<tangent> Ironically this is just what they were unable to do for 8 years of Obama </tangent>
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Historically, they never got over the Civil War either.

It is important to remember that the Democrats have neither house of Congress. There is a real limit to what they can do, with the best will in the world. They cannot propose legislation. They cannot dictate policy.

And there is a good tactical reason to just sit back, and let the GOP pick up the ball and run. They said they could do it. They said it for seven years, shilling the most extreme and un-passable policies in the secure knowledge that Barack Obama would veto their excesses. Now, they have to put their money where their mouth is. They actually have to govern. And ooh, who would have thought, it's hard. Whatever happens, it's all on them.

Here (alas, from the POST, so it'll cost you a click)
is one of many articles about how the citizenry actually does not like the candy the GOP is shilling, now that they get to look at it. The money quote: "For all 90 minutes, a woman named Yaneth Poarch, 46, stood behind the senator holding a sign with caricatures of Republican leaders, and the warning “When you lose your health care, remember who took it away.” "

[ 07. July 2017, 13:50: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
You know, if you asked me to rank the members of the Trump administration by who would be most likely to be caught doing some inappropriate touching, Mike Pence would have been pretty near the bottom of the list.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The opposition I read to Trump is mostly critical of him personally, or of his supporters, which in my view distracts attention from the more important issue of criticism of his policies.

But the biggest problems with him being President are due to his personal character more than his policies.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The opposition I read to Trump is mostly critical of him personally, or of his supporters, which in my view distracts attention from the more important issue of criticism of his policies.

But the biggest problems with him being President are due to his personal character more than his policies.
Surely it's both?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
IMNSHO He doesn't have any policies. He has whims, idees fixes, and above all, reactions. I honestly don't think he's given enough thought to anything to call it a policy, even a bad one.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
IMNSHO He doesn't have any policies. He has whims, idees fixes, and above all, reactions. I honestly don't think he's given enough thought to anything to call it a policy, even a bad one.

Don't you think the absence of policies was his greatest strength in the campaign? It worked then and as far as popularity back home is concerned, it seems too be working now.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
IMNSHO He doesn't have any policies. He has whims, idees fixes, and above all, reactions. I honestly don't think he's given enough thought to anything to call it a policy, even a bad one.

I don't know about that. The anti-immigrant thing may be an idée fixe, but Trump (or his appointees, which amounts to the same thing) has also made significant policy changes there. Interestingly this is one of the ways the Trump administration differs from what we'd expect from a generic Republican presidency. I could see a President Cruz pulling the plug on the Affordable Care Act or a President Rubio gutting the EPA, but the I don't think any other major Republican political figure would be this harshly anti-immigrant.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know, if you asked me to rank the members of the Trump administration by who would be most likely to be caught doing some inappropriate touching, Mike Pence would have been pretty near the bottom of the list.

He'd be at the top of mine because he is so violently anti-gay. It's the loudest homophobes who are found in the restrooms at airports doing naughty things with baggage boys.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Croesus:
quote:
...if you asked me to rank the members of the Trump administration by who would be most likely to be caught doing some inappropriate touching, Mike Pence would have been pretty near the bottom of the list.
Really? He'd have been near the top of mine as soon as I found out about his ludicrous and outdated attitudes to dining alone with women. He's obviously scared of *something*, if he thinks he needs a chaperone to have dinner in a public place with any woman not his wife.

Wonder how many thousands of dollars he wasted by touching that satellite...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Why weren't Pence and the other men wearing gear appropriate for clean rooms?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
That whole thing about Pence and women reminds me of Margaret Attwood's chilling novel The Handmaid's Tale.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
simontoad, others have noted the resemblance to The Handmaid's Tale...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
WTF is this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40541611 ?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
WTF is this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40541611 ?

Hopefully he's ill and not coping with the trip.

Putting his daughter in place of a high ranking official or diplomat? Nothing surprises me about the man.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Hopefully he's ill and not coping with the trip.

quote:
The US president had stepped away for a meeting with the Indonesian leader during the G20 meeting.

 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
Ms Trump did not seem to make any major contribution to the session on African migration and health during her father's absence.
...but her presence, in place of the President or a ranking official with a specific interest in the discussion, was suggestive of a lack of interest on the part of the US administration.

It's wild. We (UK) get riled when MPs pay their wives or children for *constituency* duties for which they are not qualified and in which roles they fail to perform.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
IMNSHO He doesn't have any policies. He has whims, idees fixes, and above all, reactions. I honestly don't think he's given enough thought to anything to call it a policy, even a bad one.

Don't you think the absence of policies was his greatest strength in the campaign? It worked then and as far as popularity back home is concerned, it seems too be working now.
"Working" being a matter of definition, of course. It is popular among a certain set of his supporters-- which in Trump's book would qualify as "working". In the sense of helping the country run effectively and move forward-- not so much.

Really, Trump has never stopped campaigning. That's what being president means to him-- campaigning. He has no need for policies-- that's governing-- dull, tedious work he can't even be bothered to hire staff to do. But campaigning-- selling himself-- that's his jam.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
Ms Trump did not seem to make any major contribution to the session on African migration and health during her father's absence.
...but her presence, in place of the President or a ranking official with a specific interest in the discussion, was suggestive of a lack of interest on the part of the US administration.

It's wild. We (UK) get riled when MPs pay their wives or children for *constituency* duties for which they are not qualified and in which roles they fail to perform.

Politico reports that according to the annual White House statement, she receives no salary for her position as "First Daughter and Advisor to the President." Neither does Jared Kushner ("Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor") or Cordish Reed ("Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental and Technology Initiatives").

It might be worth paying each member of the Trump family a few hundred grand if by doing so we could be sure that they wouldn't actually try to do anything.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Was tagging along with my mom at her doctor's appointment, and the TV in the waiting room was showing a clip of the Cherri in Chief. He spent a good ten minutes talking about someone who had nice things to say about him, making sure to emphasize that he didn't need anyone's validation. Seriously, all he was talking about was himself and what everyone thought of him. It was depressing and pathetic.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Chris Uhlmann's ¹ assessment seems depressing accurate.

Trump in interested only in fame and lacks competence for his role outside a very narrow range of action.

----

¹ Insiders ABC
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Seriously, all he was talking about was himself and what everyone thought of him.

Like the gulls in Finding Nemo. One thought, over and over; but even more self-centered. 'Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me.'
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So apparently Donald Trump, Jr. arranged a meeting between a Russian lawyer who's in tight with the Russian government, Paul Manafort, and the ubiquitous Jared Kushner because the Russians were offering damaging information on Hillary Clinton. None of the participants reported this meeting, despite Kushner going through a security check for his current position as White House advisor. Trump II's explanation was that he thought he was getting hacked data from a foreign government but it turned out Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer in question, just wanted to talk about getting some Russian mob money unfrozen. (I'm getting the feeling that none of the Trump kids are used to having to explain themselves. Shut up, Donny! You're not helping yourself.)

So this would seem to at least step up to the line of "colluding with the Russian government to influence the election", if not leap over it. Which brings us to the question of how much treason Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are willing to tolerate to get that upper-income tax cut? So far, the answer seems to be "a lot".
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's difficult to believe that Lyin' Don didn't know about what his son, his son-in-law and his campaign manager were doing in his name and to his campaign. Over in the Atlantic this argument is summarized cogently.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
None of the participants reported this meeting, despite Kushner going through a security check for his current position as White House advisor.

Point of order, I thought Kushner did declare it (although not the alleged agenda)?

[ETA: at least belatedly; "Kushner disclosed the meeting in revised forms for his security clearance, his lawyer said", Source]

[ 10. July 2017, 20:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
None of the participants reported this meeting, despite Kushner going through a security check for his current position as White House advisor.

Point of order, I thought Kushner did declare it (although not the alleged agenda)?

[ETA: at least belatedly; "Kushner disclosed the meeting in revised forms for his security clearance, his lawyer said", Source]

I'm not sure what to make of this belated confession. "Oh, you mean 'meetings with foreigners' includes Russians too! Who knew?" That seems less like someone making a good faith effort than someone getting caught and attempting some damage control.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure what to make of this belated confession. "Oh, you mean 'meetings with foreigners' includes Russians too! Who knew?" That seems less like someone making a good faith effort than someone getting caught and attempting some damage control.

It depends somewhat on how long ago he did it; I don't get the impression it's that recent, but I haven't seen a date.

It doesn't look good for them all, though. AIUI Trump Sr. was in the same building at the time, and the meeting took place in close proximity to Trump statements about HRC e-mails. In France, all this in the hands of an investigating magistrate would constitute un faisceau d'indices (roughly, "a suggestive pattern of clues"), which would be enough to bring charges here, but it's all terribly circumstantial so far, and remember Trump Sr. is a class act in wriggling.

Setting off to read this now.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
The meeting took place in June of 2016, after Trump won the Republican nomination.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
So trumpy goes to Poland, tells the Poles about standing together, being an ally and that western values will never be broken.

The he goes to the G20 in Hamburg. 19 countries sign the communiqué and America doesn't. Way to stand together-- okay, yes, um, yah you're right, we don't want to stand anywhere near him. These communiuqués are worked on way in advance: this was giving everyone else in the world the finger. Well we all know trumpy either doesn’t know what he is talking about, can’t deliver on anything, and is quite likely lying anyway. As the world moves on to a world where America doesn't matter. America alone.

Meanwhile, Mike Pence wants to fit in with his stink-fingering boss so he specifically touches space equipment at NASA where the sign says "do not touch". Can't American politicians keep their hands to themselves?

[ 11. July 2017, 03:41: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The meeting took place in June of 2016, after Trump won the Republican nomination.

I meant we don't know when Kushner disclosed the meeting for his security clearance.

As far as I can tell, what this meeting might have done is broken campaign finance laws by the parties agreeing to meet on the basis of an offer of a "thing of value" from a foreign entity to a US political campaign. I like this to the extent that it fits my prediction of Trump eventually being brought down by relatively minor technicalities rather than, say, some flagrant piece of kompromat. Still no smoking gun though.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
The BBC is reporting Trump's visit is being planned for 2018 - my guess is they're hoping he will have been impeached by then.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
A forlorn hope, I suspect. An impeachment process
launched against a Republican president by the House with its Republican majority? Trial by a Republican-majority Senate? The latter seems slightly more possible, but the process starts in the House. And it's by no means a sure bet that the House majority will change hands even after the 2018 midterms, though we can work toward that end.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
As I stated on another thread, I would not be entirely surprised by a Praetorian move/palace coup/call-it-what-you-will. (From Graves, when Claudius is pulled from behind a curtain, a Praetorian screams at German mercenary, "He's the bloody Kaiser!" I await to see who that kaiser might be. Start a pool?)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
There are no saddles, only sinks. A standard deviation toward worst case goes on and on in the chaos of politics, religion. Trump cannot lose. Despite winning nothing of any substance. Liberalism has lost. Internationally, nationally, everywhere except within the beleaguered EU. There's not a functional trace of it in religion. Sunni SCIS is defeated by overwhelming US firepower above Shia ground forces in ruined Mosul. What can possibly stop that water bed rebounding? It's OK, the US will continue to make a fortune. Jihadists will continue to murder Europeans. This is Trump's world: divide and do deals with the fragments.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The meeting took place in June of 2016, after Trump won the Republican nomination.

I meant we don't know when Kushner disclosed the meeting for his security clearance.
Kushner filed his first revision when it came out in early April that he'd omitted meetings with various Russians from his security clearance application. He had to revise again when it came out in late May that Kushner had still more contacts with Russian officials that had somehow slipped his mind.

Beware Russian diplomats! They have the power to cloud the minds of men.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Still no smoking gun though.

You mean something like an e-mail to Trump Jr. saying the Russians want to help your dad's campaign, let's meet and talk about it? Something like that?

In another amazing 'coincidence', Trump Sr.'s very first tweet about Hillary Clinton's e-mails seems to have happened at 4:40 pm (Eastern Time) the day of Trump Jr.'s meeting.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Surely of no significance. Coincidence! Who are you going to believe, a person named Donald Trump, or your own ears and eyes?
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Liberalism has lost. Internationally, nationally, everywhere except within the beleaguered EU.

That's a pretty big except. As this article in the Guardian pointed about a couple of months ago, the liberal centre in Europe is actually holding up pretty well (note that it was written before the definitive election of Macron). Possibly the democratic future of liberalism is a bit less English speaking (I mean so long as you ignore the fact that these days the President of France speaks better English than the President of the United States [Snigger] ) but the supposed populist domino effect in Europe hasn’t happened.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Might I add Canada? Not to be focussed on my navel, but since you are focussed on yours, Martin....
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Seriously, WTF does Trump Jr. think he's doing here? (Here's part 1, and here is a screenshot to preserve the tweet after his apoplectic lawyer makes him delete it.) "Here is a complete e-mail chain of me setting up collusion between my father's campaign and someone identified to me as a representative of 'Russia and its government'" is not a typical way to defend yourself against accusations of colluding with the Russian government. Is he trying to get back at dad because he didn't get that car when he turned 16 or something? Or does he simply not understand how grossly illegal and unethical those actions were?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, WTF does Trump Jr. think he's doing here?

Well, Trump Jr.'s not part of the Trump administration so the rules don't apply to him. He never talks to anyone in the administration which is why Trump Sr has no conflict of interest. Nobody in the administration or the campaign knew what Trump Jr. was doing. In fact, Trump Jr. doesn't know anyone in the Trump administration. He's never even met the President. He's only just realised that the President is that old guy who used to lech over his sister.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seriously, WTF does Trump Jr. think he's doing here? (Here's part 1, and here is a screenshot to preserve the tweet after his apoplectic lawyer makes him delete it.) "Here is a complete e-mail chain of me setting up collusion between my father's campaign and someone identified to me as a representative of 'Russia and its government'" is not a typical way to defend yourself against accusations of colluding with the Russian government. Is he trying to get back at dad because he didn't get that car when he turned 16 or something? Or does he simply not understand how grossly illegal and unethical those actions were?

Well that appears to be a smoking gun for Don Jr. I guess he's trying to get it out himself before it's leaked.

It still doesn't directly implicate his dad, though, does it? And he's a master wriggler.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In another amazing 'coincidence', Trump Sr.'s very first tweet about Hillary Clinton's e-mails seems to have happened at 4:40 pm (Eastern Time) the day of Trump Jr.'s meeting.

Oh, I know. But I'm sure a lot of other things did too, as even Keith Oberlmann admits. It really is going to have to be ironclad.

In prison I've seen the other side of this. I've seen people convicted because a) their cell phone was on and in the vicinity of the crime b) their cell phone was on and not in the vicinity of the crime ("you obviously cunningly left it at home") c) their cell phone was off at the time of the crime ("you obviously switched it off to disguise where you were") - and I'm not convinced any of those in any of these scenarios were guilty.

[ 11. July 2017, 16:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I would bet that all of these convicted persons were poor, or persons of color or ethnicity. Don Jr. has been pampered all his life. He probably does not realize there were laws -- they never hampered him before. Remember the basic operating principle here: For me, not you. I get to blow through federal laws without looking back; you get Bengazi hearings. I get to be cozy with Russians, you get demands for a birth certificate. I get to grope the genitalia of women, you get denunciations of your character and accusations of child trafficking out of pizza parlors.

[ 11. July 2017, 17:24: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Are you watching Sean Hannity tonight? Don Jr. is apparently on. Maybe he'll claim its a Democrat setup.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well that appears to be a smoking gun for Don Jr. I guess he's trying to get it out himself before it's leaked.

The interesting question here is who are the source(s) for this information? The New York Times refers to "three people with knowledge of the email" or three "White House advisers". Who has such a vendetta against Donald Trump, Jr.?

The calls are coming from inside the (White) house! [Eek!]

Some speculation I've seen is that Trump Jr. is a sacrifice who [jumped / was pushed] to protect Jared Kushner, who also attended those meetings and would face much more serious legal jeopardy (as someone with an official position within the White House and who had to fill out a lot of questionnaires to get there) than Trump Jr. would.

[ 11. July 2017, 17:27: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He would risk jail time for dear Jared? Really? We've got to be at least dimly plausible with these scenarios, you know. Credulity is not only strained, it's limping with a crutch.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He would risk jail time for dear Jared? Really? We've got to be at least dimly plausible with these scenarios, you know. Credulity is not only strained, it's limping with a crutch.

I would guess that the reasoning is more that Jr would be called naughty and Kushner might be called criminal.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He would risk jail time for dear Jared? Really? We've got to be at least dimly plausible with these scenarios, you know. Credulity is not only strained, it's limping with a crutch.

Well, not voluntarily, nor is it certain that anything described so far would result in jail time. Most FEC violations are settled with fines.

I'm speculating on the possibility that the Times' sources are Kushner loyalists banking on Trump Jr. not having anything that he could trade to prosecutors (if he ever faces prosecutors) that would implicate Kushner. Someone in the White House seems to have it in for Trump Jr.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...so they're loyal to the King, sorry I mean the President, they just think he needs different advisors?

Niccolo Machiavelli: five hundred years old and still topical.

[ 11. July 2017, 18:23: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
It appears part of the Trump coterie's defense to all these recent allegations is that the Ukrainian government was helping the Clinton campaign with info that made Trump look bad. Does anyone know what they are referring to if there is any truth to it?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It appears part of the Trump coterie's defense to all these recent allegations is that the Ukrainian government was helping the Clinton campaign with info that made Trump look bad. Does anyone know what they are referring to if there is any truth to it?

Last August the Ukrainian government made public a handwritten ledger claiming Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort (one of the attendees at the Veselnitskaya meeting) worked for Ukraine's corrupt, pro-Russian former President Viktor Yanukovych. It was later confirmed that Manafort did indeed get paid by Yanukovych.

As far as I know, no one has ever demonstrated that the Ukrainian government in any way colluded with the Clinton campaign in making this information public. My own personal take is that they were just pissed off that the Trump campaign had so many ties to the Russians.

[ 11. July 2017, 19:33: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It appears part of the Trump coterie's defense to all these recent allegations is that the Ukrainian government was helping the Clinton campaign with info that made Trump look bad. Does anyone know what they are referring to if there is any truth to it?

Will the projection and lies never stop?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
There's a tantalizing bit near the end of Trump Jr.'s self-incriminating e-mail dump this morning. The last thing Rob Goldstone writes to Trump Jr. is:

quote:
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
There's the suggestion that Trump Sr. should be informed of this, but no real evidence that he actually was. But who is "Rhona"? Via Politico:

quote:
When longtime friends and associates of President Donald Trump want to reach him, they don’t go directly to the White House. Instead, they call the woman who’s been the gatekeeper at Trump Tower for a quarter century: Rhona Graff.

<snip>

If I wanted to get something to Trump without calling his cell phone, I’d send it to Rhona,” said another confidant who goes through Graff to get to Trump.

Again, this is proof of nothing but I think someone just moved up a few places in Robert Mueller's subpœna list.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Someone in the White House seems to have it in for Trump Jr.

Probably the President: "That little brat has been trading in on my good name long enough. Time to get even. Lock Him Up!"
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It appears part of the Trump coterie's defense to all these recent allegations is that the Ukrainian government was helping the Clinton campaign with info that made Trump look bad. Does anyone know what they are referring to if there is any truth to it?

Will the projection and lies never stop?
To clarify, I take just about everything that Trump administration and Trump surrogates say in order to deflect criticism with such a huge grain of salt that I almost assume it to be false until proven true. But since my parents are (to my utter inability to understand) Trump supporters, I feel I need to be able to respond to anything unbelievable that they tell me in Trump's defense.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure what to make of this belated confession. "Oh, you mean 'meetings with foreigners' includes Russians too! Who knew?" That seems less like someone making a good faith effort than someone getting caught and attempting some damage control.

It depends somewhat on how long ago he did it; I don't get the impression it's that recent, but I haven't seen a date.

It doesn't look good for them all, though. AIUI Trump Sr. was in the same building at the time, and the meeting took place in close proximity to Trump statements about HRC e-mails. In France, all this in the hands of an investigating magistrate would constitute un faisceau d'indices (roughly, "a suggestive pattern of clues"), which would be enough to bring charges here, but it's all terribly circumstantial so far, and remember Trump Sr. is a class act in wriggling.

Setting off to read this now.

Eutychus, you are improving the quality of my American Politics bookmarks every time you link something. Thanks.

[ 12. July 2017, 00:09: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you watching Sean Hannity tonight? Don Jr. is apparently on. Maybe he'll claim its a Democrat setup.

Watched it. Hannity is an apologist and an obfuscator. I don't think Trump Jr would have got such an easy ride from Fox News's Shepard Smith. If Trump Jr had offered an interview with Anderson Cooper, I might have been more impressed - after falling off my chair with surprise.

Shep Smith's comments remind me of a famous Sir Humphreyism. " We should always tell the press freely and frankly anything that they could easily find out some other way.". Or have already found out.

Trump Jr was helped to make the best of a bad job. But you wouldn't expect anything else. No doubt the Trump loyalists and Fox News watchers lapped up this further illustration of "mainstream media bias". The world of alternative facts is alive and well.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Before I left the dining table in my house to eat alone in the living room, my "guest" was listening to Nigel Farage chortling about what the liberal media would be making of this business - he definitely supports DT jr in the matter.

(My "guest" knows I do not want to listen to NF, and mocks me for it. In my house. While eating the food I have bought and prepared for her.)

[ 12. July 2017, 09:40: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
(My "guest" knows I do not want to listen to NF, and mocks me for it. In my house. While eating the food I have bought and prepared for her.)

Don't even think about importing this tale of woe into Purgatory.

/hosting
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Absolutely not - it was a parallel with Trump supporters known to people above.

I am, mostly, observing silence over this issue since I received so little support. I know my place.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
If I was investigating this, I'd want to know more about Mr Goldstone.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Absolutely not - it was a parallel with Trump supporters known to people above.

I am, mostly, observing silence over this issue since I received so little support. I know my place.

The last part of what I quoted had nothing to do with the subject here and everything to do with your pet peeve.

As does your last paragraph above.

If you want to dispute a Hostly ruling, take it to the Styx.

In the meantime, bringing your blog material up again here will result in notification to the admins.

/hosting
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Someone in the White House seems to have it in for Trump Jr.

Probably the President: "That little brat has been trading in on my good name long enough. Time to get even. Lock Him Up!"
Something about the Trump family dynamics reminds me of the FLDS and other predatory polygamous cults. while the young girls are bullied into service to the old men, the young boys are seen as excess baggage and threats, do often expelled for minor offenses. While we have no explicit evidence of insppropriate relationships here, the dynamics between the three elder siblings very much seem to fall along these lines. The weird role kushner seems to play as co-conspirator in the creepy-weird ivanka/dad relationship and supplanting Jr's just adds to the discomfiture. I'm not making any allegations so much as noting how very very creepy and disfunctional it all seems
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Something about the Trump family dynamics reminds me of the FLDS and other predatory polygamous cults. while the young girls are bullied into service to the old men, the young boys are seen as excess baggage and threats, do often expelled for minor offenses. While we have no explicit evidence of insppropriate relationships here, the dynamics between the three elder siblings very much seem to fall along these lines.

We do have some second-hand evidence of something deeply wrong with the family. How plausible you consider this account to be is a matter of personal judgment, but I can certainly picture Trump Jr. hitting the tweet button and saying "You got time for me now, dad?"

On another, somewhat related matter, Trump's nominee to replace James Comey at the FBI is testifying before the Senate today. Those interested can watch it live on C-SPAN. The folks at Lawfare have a few thoughts on what to look for in Wray's testimony.

[ 12. July 2017, 14:30: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I think we can all agree that no amount of money, no quantity of designer clothing/boob lifts/penthouses plated in gold/golf courses/private planes, would make up for the agonies of being in this family.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think we can all agree that no amount of money, no quantity of designer clothing/boob lifts/penthouses plated in gold/golf courses/private planes, would make up for the agonies of being in this family.

Self-imposed agonies. Hard to work up any sympathy here.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think we can all agree that no amount of money, no quantity of designer clothing/boob lifts/penthouses plated in gold/golf courses/private planes, would make up for the agonies of being in this family.

Self-imposed agonies. Hard to work up any sympathy here.
The children didn't have any choice.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think we can all agree that no amount of money, no quantity of designer clothing/boob lifts/penthouses plated in gold/golf courses/private planes, would make up for the agonies of being in this family.

Self-imposed agonies. Hard to work up any sympathy here.
The children didn't have any choice.
They didn't have any choice to be his children. They have had plenty of choice since then not to be his stooges.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The children didn't have any choice.

They didn't have any choice to be his children. They have had plenty of choice since then not to be his stooges.
Tiffany Trump, for example, seems to have minimal contact with her father and half-siblings. At age 11 Barron Trump doesn't have much choice. He's probably not being cultivated by Russians as an inroad to reaching his father either, though with the FSB you can never really be sure.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is famously true that you are stuck with your relatives. See? A silver lining in every cloud! However dysfunctional and repellent your family is, at the least you are not in danger of impeachment because of your kids' dingbat emails.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is famously true that you are stuck with your relatives. See? A silver lining in every cloud! However dysfunctional and repellent your family is, at the least you are not in danger of impeachment because of your kids' dingbat emails.

But you are not stuck working for them.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is famously true that you are stuck with your relatives. See? A silver lining in every cloud! However dysfunctional and repellent your family is, at the least you are not in danger of impeachment because of your kids' dingbat emails.

But you are not stuck working for them.
Oh, I dunno. Junior's job prospects elsewhere don't look too shiny right now.

[ 12. July 2017, 21:07: Message edited by: Ohher ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is famously true that you are stuck with your relatives. See? A silver lining in every cloud! However dysfunctional and repellent your family is, at the least you are not in danger of impeachment because of your kids' dingbat emails.

But you are not stuck working for them.
Oh, I dunno. Junior's job prospects elsewhere don't look too shiny right now.
I don't know about that. He could probably have a successful go at being at tell-all book author (with an appropriately talented ghost-writing collaborator). Maybe not enough to keep him in the style to which he's accustomed, but I imagine his first book, at least, would sell very well.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Junior could get a cushy job at Fox.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Was good enough for a certain ex-governor of a northwestern state.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Sure, if they're recruiting for Stupid.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The trumpies as a group on a game show might be fun, like Family Feud. Or maybe we can vote them on to the island.

I was going to say used car salesman for trumpy junior. You know the seedy kind who take out their combs and slick their hair back while talking to you, and you don't want to shake their hand without washing after. Distinctive scent of Aqua Velva aftershave or if he's learned well from his daddy maybe it's a new one called Afta Vulva.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
You don't have to be smart to do well in property. You just have to have deep pockets.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
If I was investigating this, I'd want to know more about Mr Goldstone.

Well, for starters, he likes hats.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Well, it's a start: House Democrat files article of impeachment against Trump.

quote:
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) formally introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump on Wednesday that accuses the president of obstructing justice during the federal investigation of Russia’s 2016 election interference...
I think it's hopeless at this point, but 44 years ago I thought the idea of impeaching Nixon was hopeless. (True, he resigned, but the thought of being impeached forced his resignation -- which I don't think will happen this time, unfortunately.)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'm hoping that T will just flounce and leave. "You don't like me? LOSERS! I never wanted to be president, anyway." And that last bit is true.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm hoping that T will just flounce and leave. "You don't like me? LOSERS! I never wanted to be president, anyway." And that last bit is true.

Not gonna happen. Too much pride. He'll run again in 2020 and he will win unless there is an amazing candidate against. Incumbents, even the massively unpopular, have a huge advantage.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
El Presidente has arrived in Paris. I know this because of the complete and utter intractable gridlock from hell on the roads this morning. Bumper to bumper all the way along the Pont de l’Alma and Avenue Montaigne and no one moving a centimetre except some very adventurous people on scooters. (Why do demagogues always arrive in the city centre in the middle of the bloody rush hour? Putin did the same.)

I’m still not sure what Macron’s playing at but incline to the view that it’s something very cunning. Tonight he is inviting Trump for dinner at the Eiffel Tower restaurant with cooking from one of France’s most famous chefs. I suspect Trump, whose diet is mostly limited to well-done steaks and ketchup, isn’t going to enjoy it all that much.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I’m still not sure what Macron’s playing at

This is a good and intriguing question.

I would guess a) that he's trying to keep the initiative in the relationship and thus keep Trump off-balance b) possibly seeking (dreaded word) optics that present him as a contender for leader of the free world as opposed to a bumbling jet-lagged buffoon (Trump must surely have some terrible jet-lag arriving at this time of day and going on to a full programme!) c) French intelligence services will be hoovering up any off-guarded comments from Trump or his entourage and storing them away for future use.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
If this article is true then I would say democracy no longer exists in the US. It's a pretence. Big business runs the show and has a cloak called 'elections'.

I wonder what the future will bring? People who can buy lawyers and pay for legal bullying hold sway in many places. The Grenfell residents were bullied in this way when they complained about fire safety.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Welcome to the thought world of billionaires. Boogie. Basically, anything and anybody can be bought.

Democracy cannot thrive if representatives can be easily suborned or manipulated. That's been the underminer of Western democracies for a long time. Stick a billionaire in the White House and it was bound to get worse.

No obvious cure in sight. Tobacco, coal, oil, they've all now got a bigger piece of the pie.

It might take a while for the rust bucketeers to realise "we wuz robbed" - again.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If this article is true then I would say democracy no longer exists in the US. It's a pretence. Big business runs the show and has a cloak called 'elections'.


It is most obvious in the USA but this has ben the case in Britain too. The democratic elections are there but the democratic government is not. Business interest have held sway since landed interests did!
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
la vie en rouge:
quote:
(Why do demagogues always arrive in the city centre in the middle of the bloody rush hour? Putin did the same.)
Because they can. It's one of the ways they say "Screw you, peasants!"
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
My sympathies today are with Manu. There he is, young, dashing, handsome, President of a great Republic with an illustrious history, dining at the table of one of the finest chefs in all France - with Trump...... [Projectile]

Doubtless the chef is too proud of his art, but how tempting it must be to....er.... spice Trump's haute cuisine with something suitably noxious...

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Tobacco doesn't cause very much cancer at all, and it does allot of good through donations to sports clubs and sponsorships. The scientists are lying to us. That iceberg was always going to fall off...

I was only thinking today about the behavior of Big Tobacco in the '60's and onwards and the behavior of the Big Miners and Drillers towards climate science over the last twenty years. Do you think Big Slavery is too long a bow?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's many and many a novel which details these things; I could give you a list. "If This Goes On" is a very common theme in genre fiction.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, and here is a POST article detailing the surprisingly simple reason for this French visit.
The salient quote:
"President Trump was not expected to attend France’s Bastille Day, which this year will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the United States’ entry into World War I.
But then he learned there would be a military parade.
French President Emmanuel Macron told Trump in a June 27 phone call about the event, which this year will feature U.S. and French troops marching through the historic streets near the Arc de Triomphe, fighter jets cutting through the skies above, and flags, horses and military equipment on display — the sort of spectacle that Trump wanted to stage at his own inauguration in January.
Trump told Macron he would be there, according to a White House official, and French and U.S. officials rushed to schedule a last-minute trip that will last about 27 hours and include dinner at an opulent restaurant in the Eiffel Tower and a visit to Napoleon Bonaparte’s tomb. "
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Hasn't anybody told him that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo? [Devil]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It must have been profoundly disappointing for him, to have a merely civilian inaugural. To be followed on the next day by millions of pussyhats on the Mall.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Or that the tomb is constructed so that visitors have to bow over to the emperor in order to look at it? Or so our English teacher of French (honoured for her part in the war) told us, and we all tried to look without bending over!
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Certainly that explains why Trump accepted. But to me that was the obvious part. Manu appealed to his vanity and it worked.

The mysterious bit open to all kinds of Machiavellian interpretations is why Manu invited someone so patently unpopular. I think there’s still some one-upmanship going on. AFAICT Manu has had the best of it so far, and this adds to that. He whistles and Trump comes running.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
So it would seem, and I hope the cunning Manu enjoys his meal despite Ozymandias' presence. I also hope that the waitresses (if any be present) have been forewarned as to where to keep their hands, when not occupied in waitressing, and to not to stand too close to Ozymandias' chair....

[Ultra confused]

IJ
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Waitresses? Surely not! They'll all be waiters who have fully mastered the art of sneering at the OOO's every move and replying to each remark with Gallic shrugs or 'Hunh?'. Like the waiter in 'M. Hulot's Holiday', only taller and in smarter uniforms (Paris, you know).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, that does seem a more likely scenario!

[Snigger]

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I think Macron may be easing T back to the Paris accord. T spoke somewhat favorably of it today.

There was talk on NPR of how it's smart to play to the things that make T comfortable, as Saudi Arabia did. In the audio today, T sounded very relaxed. Haven't seen pictures, yet.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Jane--

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Hasn't anybody told him that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo? [Devil]

I don't suppose Macron could get ABBA back together, briefly, to sing "Waterloo" at Napoleon's crypt?
[Two face]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think Macron may be easing T back to the Paris accord. T spoke somewhat favorably of it today.

Oh, please. This is Trump 101. You can't trust a thing he says. And what has he said?
quote:
"Something could happen with respect to the Paris accord," he said.

Mr Trump added: "We'll see what happens."

That is right up there with the standard parent's response when a child asks for a pony for Christmas. "We'll see, dear." Trump has promised nothing, said nothing, hinted at nothing. He made a vague comment so that it did not sound like he was spitting in his host's eye. That is what any business man would do. But you are deluding yourself if you think it means that Trump has any intention of participating in the Paris Accord. Unless it is to sell you something.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
France Info's chief US correspondent reckons Macron has a card to play in positioning France as the US' privileged point of contact within the EU. Trump and Merkel are daggers drawn and the UK has inconveniently removed itself from the EU, which gives France an opportunity.

Modelling himself after De Gaulle who would talk to just about anybody, Macron is seeking to restore the fortunes of French diplomacy. Or so the analysis goes.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
I'm sure Macron has Trump right where he wants him...

[Roll Eyes]

What world are you people living in?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The decline of the world perhaps began when Anglais*, the angry language of business, replaced French as the internatonal language. And beer of the Budweiser corn variety (God is crying) replaced civilized beverages. If we all spoke French and drank wine, it would be better place, this world.


*English.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I'm sure Macron has Trump right where he wants him...

[Roll Eyes]

What world are you people living in?

Yeah. The French were the enemy way before the Ruskies.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
...minus contributions such as Lafayette and that tall lady in New York harbor.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Hasn't anybody told him that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo? [Devil]

Only with German (OK, Prussian) intervention.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ romanlion

I suppose most of us are more puzzled or appalled by the thought world the Donald is living in. He's a very ODD human being, by any normal standards.

[ 14. July 2017, 07:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I don't think anyone has told the French that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I suppose most of us are more puzzled or appalled by the thought world the Donald is living in. He's a very ODD human being, by any normal standards.

Do not denigrate the odd by grouping the Cheeto in with us.
Or groping him in with us, either.

[ 14. July 2017, 13:16: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, there's odd (most of us, if truth be told), and ODD, which is Trumpelstiltskin...

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
How odd do you need to be in order to be ODD? A lot odder than any regular on SoF. Oddly enough.

I think a would be Shipmate Trump would have been planked before he got out of Apprentice status. Oh what joy for a hypothetical Admin, to be able to post "You're fired".
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's not that he's odd; if odd were a sin the Ship would be an empty hulk. Nor even is it that he's malevolent; entire Houses of Congress are malevolent as you may soon see if the Senate passes this health care legislation. It's that he is a monster of ego. Nothing is important except that it feeds his self-esteem; he wants a win or something he can declare to be a win but what it is means nothing to him. He remembers nothing and expects us all to forget what he said yesterday as well.
Macron has managed him like a master, showing him the pretty military toys, pretending to honor and listen to him. That is -all- you have to do.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What world are you people living in?

One in which facts like Former Soviet Counterintelligence Officer at Meeting With Donald Trump Jr. and Russian Lawyer are dismissed as merely sour grapes because Hillary didn't win, apparently.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's that he is a monster of ego. Nothing is important except that it feeds his self-esteem; he wants a win or something he can declare to be a win but what it is means nothing to him.

I think this is the key. It is not unusual in the corporate world to have this mentality. Typically less ham-handed, though, and with some semblance of intelligence.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
This is an odd bit of Trumpery which the press don't seem to have called correctly.

His 'your wife is in such good shape...' gaff to Macron seems to be being read as if he meant it - after all, he has form as a letch. Whereas it seems to be classic playground bully stuff - '...for a woman who is considerably older than both you, and my own hot trophy bride' being left unspoken.

An amazing prick.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What world are you people living in?

One in which facts like Former Soviet Counterintelligence Officer at Meeting With Donald Trump Jr. and Russian Lawyer are dismissed as merely sour grapes because Hillary didn't win, apparently.
What is the alleged crime here? It isn't dismissed as sour grapes, it's dismissed because it is meaningless bullshit, and completely contrived.

No where near the level of the former POTUS telling the Russian president that he will have "more flexibility" after the election with regard to leaving NATO allies without missile defense, IMO. That is direct collusion with the Russians to submit to their will against our interests, which he did.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the POST, but all you really need is the headline: Trump Admits His Border Wall Could Be Defeated By Medieval Siege Technology. The photograph is of a trebuchet, which seems to be standing in the green moat of the Tower of London.

[ 14. July 2017, 17:43: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
[Killing me]

In other news, the Society for Creative Anachronism is under investigation for un-American activities...
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Given that The Wall probably won't be built, and therefore will be invisible (IYSWIM), will Ozymandias The Great think it has been built?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
The political cartoonists are way ahead of us.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
What is the alleged crime here?

Oh, I see you've got your talking points delivered.

I haven't alleged anything, but solliciting a "thing of value" to influence a US election campaign is a felony, as I understand it, and this certainly looks like evidence of it.

More fundamentally than whether a crime is proven, what I find gob-smacking is the number of people for whom the level of entanglement of Trump's immediate entourage with dodgy foreign interests doesn't appear to present any ethical concern whatsoever.
quote:
No where near the level of the former POTUS telling the Russian president that he will have "more flexibility" after the election with regard to leaving NATO allies without missile defense, IMO. That is direct collusion with the Russians to submit to their will against our interests, which he did.
Oh, another talking-point. Can you point me back to where you were up in arms about this at the time? I didn't think so.

There's absolutely nothing to be gained here by comparing current misdeeds to alleged former ones. The question is whether the current US president and his team are fit to govern the country.

The speed at which his staff have to keep changing their story to keep up is a major cause for concern.

The talking-points distribution team's defence tactics appear to be taken straight from Art Buchwald on Watergate - see point 27 for example to cover your objection above.

[ 14. July 2017, 20:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Not to mention points 2, 9, 19 and 32.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Oh dear. I just found out the name of the new Senate healthcare bill.

quote:
The latest Senate GOP health care bill, known as the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BRCA)...
Seriously? Are these people completely clueless, to choose such an acronym?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This might be useful for some of us. (free click)
From today's Jennifer Rubin column in the POST:
ternal moral truth or ethical code.”
"Let’s dispense with the “Democrats are just as bad” defense. First, I don’t much care; we collectively face a party in charge of virtually the entire federal government and the vast majority of statehouses and governorships. It’s that party’s inner moral rot that must concern us for now. Second, it’s simply not true, and saying so reveals the origin of the problem — a “woe is me” sense of victimhood that grossly exaggerates the opposition’s ills and in turn justifies its own egregious political judgments and rhetoric. If the GOP had not become unhinged about the Clintons, would it have rationalized Trump as the lesser of two evils? Only in the crazed bubble of right-wing hysteria does an ethically challenged, moderate Democrat become a threat to Western civilization and Trump the salvation of America."
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Not to mention points 2, 9, 19 and 32.

#15 needs revision as follows: "I'd rather have a fool in the White House than a crook." Oh, wait . . .
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh dear. I just found out the name of the new Senate healthcare bill.

quote:
The latest Senate GOP health care bill, known as the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BRCA)...
Seriously? Are these people completely clueless, to choose such an acronym?
You know the answer to this question . . . but why would a committee composed entirely of men (men who have forgotten that men, too, get breast cancer) be any more up to speed on BRCA than the fact that men, er, frequently make some little contribution to maternity.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Umm, people?

Better Care Reconciliation Act would be BCRA, not BRCA.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Ah, well. It was typical while it lasted.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Meh. I suppose they fired their proofreaders like (almost) everybody else.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
"In a world in which Donald Trump is president, may we all be Jimmy Carter." -- George Takei

Carter is unquestionably the most worthwhile former president we have ever had. He is also (per the Beatitudes) a man pretty well guaranteed to see God.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
"In a world in which Donald Trump is president, may we all be Jimmy Carter." -- George Takei

Carter is unquestionably the most worthwhile former president we have ever had. He is also (per the Beatitudes) a man pretty well guaranteed to see God.

So of course when he ran for re-election in 1980, the so-called Christian right supported Ronald Reagan.

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
"In a world in which Donald Trump is president, may we all be Jimmy Carter." -- George Takei

Carter is unquestionably the most worthwhile former president we have ever had.

I've always thought so.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Perhaps we could get Carter and his Habitat For Humanity to build the Trumps a house on an uninhabited island? And encourage them all to resign ASAP?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I find myself blown away that at 92, and one day after being hospitalised for dehydration on the job, Carter is back doing it at grassroots level. The guy demonstrates a servant heart that has far outlasted his tenure in the White House.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
As everyone knows, Australia has the best TV shows about American politics. They're great. They're really great. The ratings are great. They're very impressive. Everything's great.

Planet America, which I have just switched off, tells me that if Donald Trump Jr merely solicited stuff of value from a foreign power in an election campaign, then that's a low-range offence for which he could expect a fine of up to US$5,000. That's not nothing, but it's not very much. Traps for young players stuff.

They also talked a little about Paul Manafort, and mentioned the allegations against the Clinton campaign that they might have breached campaign finance laws in receiving information about him from people in Ukraine. Now, Ukraine is not a hostile power, and Russia is. But it could still be an offence, and I don't think it can be dismissed. It has no bearing on the moral culpability of Trump's actions.

All this suggests that while Jr. might have been convicted in the court of public opinion (along with everyone else associated with Trump), he's still a long way from being sent down by a real court.

I'm still going to heckle the bastard about making sure he packs a toothbrush if I get a chance. I'm working on a raft of insults.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
A few weeks ago a story broke that Trump had framed fake TIME Magazine covers of himself hung in several of his resorts.

This past Friday two Democratic congressman brought into the House of Representatives an enormous printout of Don Junior’s actual TIME cover.

I’ll bet that one doesn’t get hung up all over Trump properties.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
As everyone knows, Australia has the best TV shows about American politics. They're great. They're really great. The ratings are great. They're very impressive. Everything's great.

Planet America, which I have just switched off, tells me that if Donald Trump Jr merely solicited stuff of value from a foreign power in an election campaign, then that's a low-range offence for which he could expect a fine of up to US$5,000. That's not nothing, but it's not very much. Traps for young players stuff.

They also talked a little about Paul Manafort, and mentioned the allegations against the Clinton campaign that they might have breached campaign finance laws in receiving information about him from people in Ukraine. Now, Ukraine is not a hostile power, and Russia is. But it could still be an offence, and I don't think it can be dismissed. It has no bearing on the moral culpability of Trump's actions.

All this suggests that while Jr. might have been convicted in the court of public opinion (along with everyone else associated with Trump), he's still a long way from being sent down by a real court.

I'm still going to heckle the bastard about making sure he packs a toothbrush if I get a chance. I'm working on a raft of insults.

Yes, Jr. is probably guilty only of a breach of ethics-- "only" being the operative word because to the Trumps an ethics breach is roughly equivalent to picking one's nose in private.

But SIL/BIL Jared Kushner may in fact be guilty of a criminal act for failing to disclose his multiple Russian contacts.

Which raises the intriguing question again of the strange sibling dynamics, and why Jr. released this infamously incriminating email. Was he trying to take down the guy who seems to have more than eclipsed him in daddy's eyes? Or is he just that stupid?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I went to the exhibit about Ernest Shackleton's expedition at Greenwich, and bought a tee shirt with this well-known quote on it: “For scientific discovery give me Scott; for speed and efficiency of travel give me Amundsen; but when disaster strikes and all hope is gone, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton.”

From this we can derive the larger rule that, when disaster does strike, find yourself Mr. Shackleton and tie yourself to his right ankle. And so it is if you really want to see God: find Mr. Carter. Because if any man alive today is going to stand before the throne of the Father and hear 'Well done, thou good and faithful servant,' it's Jimmy Carter.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Wow, that's quite a testimonial, Brenda.

I gather, from Wikipedia (so it must be True), that Mr. Carter's presidency was not entirely well-regarded, despite the many Good Things achieved.

However, he certainly hasn't let the grass grow under his feet during his post-presidential years, and his commitment to Christ, and his humanitarian work, do him great credit. Long may he continue to teach in Sunday School!

O, America - what a contrast with the current incumbent (or should that be encumbrance?)...

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Was he trying to take down the guy who seems to have more than eclipsed him in daddy's eyes? Or is he just that stupid?

Yes.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Ms. Clough.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
All this suggests that while Jr. might have been convicted in the court of public opinion (along with everyone else associated with Trump), he's still a long way from being sent down by a real court.

Absolutely. But criminal activity isn't the significance of the event. It is a step on the road.

Take an analogy. The police suspect a group of robbing a bank. That group swears that they have had nothing whatsoever to do with that bank, much less stole anything from it. Then video evidence emerges that clearly shows one of the group entering the bank on the day of the robbery. Now defenders of the group will say, accurately, that it is no crime to enter a bank. True. But in light of the prior denials of any contact with the bank, it is suspicious and warrants further investigation. It is a step on the path.

The Trump Campaign denied that they had ANY contacts with the Russian government. Now Junior's e-mails show that they were told the Russian government wanted to help Trump win the presidency and Junior was so excited about this that he happily agreed to a meeting to get more info, bringing in other members of the campaign staff.

It may not be illegal, but it is suspicious. He walked into the bank. It warrants further investigation. If only to see what else Trump and his people have brazenly lied to the American people about.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Wow, that's quite a testimonial, Brenda.

I gather, from Wikipedia (so it must be True), that Mr. Carter's presidency was not entirely well-regarded, despite the many Good Things achieved.

Among Republicans. Because he had the audacity to be a Christian and mean it.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I remember when Jimmy Carter was president, and how pleased I was with his very obvious Christian heart. My brother, who I did not know at the time was a conspiracy theorist, insisted that Carter was the antichrist. That, along with the Republicans' rants about him puzzled me greatly. Too bad I didn't know then what I know now.

How many of these little "oops" things have to happen with the Trump guys before there is any accountability? Had President Obama done just one of these oopses, he'd have been strung up. Yeah, I'm a broken record, and a very frustrated one.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
President Carter's approval ratings over the course of his presidency. That's a lot of Republicans.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
At this terribly late date, if Jimmy Carter is the Antichrist, he's totally missed the train. The man is in his mid-90s and frail; he becomes dehydrated and ill building houses for the homeless. How can he grind the world under his iron heel now?

(And where is that Muslim Caliphate? Obama has totally let us down, I am bitterly disappointed. He didn't even take all the guns.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At this terribly late date, if Jimmy Carter is the Antichrist, he's totally missed the train. The man is in his mid-90s and frail; he becomes dehydrated and ill building houses for the homeless. How can he grind the world under his iron heel now?

(And where is that Muslim Caliphate? Obama has totally let us down, I am bitterly disappointed. He didn't even take all the guns.)

And the conspiracy theorists will just conveniently forget their failed conspiracies and find new ones to obsess over. And never see the disconnect.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
not taking the guns was a big mistake.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I go to the Walmart and cruise the parking lot fruitlessly, looking for those prison camps. You just cannot rely on antichrists these days.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
"You just cannot rely on antichrists these days."

(although Trump is trying hard)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
"You just cannot rely on antichrists these days."

(although Trump is trying hard)

Nonsense. From a conversation about this today with a UK evangelical antichrist-obssessed acquaintance from my university days:
quote:
Trunp is pro Christian so not very likely [to be the antichrist]...
he defends Christian values, is anti abortion and anti homosexual, good guy

[brick wall]

[ 17. July 2017, 15:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 
Jimmy Carter is indeed the least odious of the recent US Presidents, but please let's not forget that he helped to oversee the US providing a quarter of a billion dollars worth of military assistance to a genocidal dictator in Indonesia. Citation here

Maybe when he gets to the pearly gates, there will be a sort of mock-trial wherein the recipients of the houses he helped build act as his defense lawyers vs the 200,000 (or so) East Timorese he helped fund the extermination of.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
Jimmy Carter is indeed the least odious of the recent US Presidents, but please let's not forget that he helped to oversee the US providing a quarter of a billion dollars worth of military assistance to a genocidal dictator in Indonesia. Citation here

Maybe when he gets to the pearly gates, there will be a sort of mock-trial wherein the recipients of the houses he helped build act as his defense lawyers vs the 200,000 (or so) East Timorese he helped fund the extermination of.

Why are all the marginal websites done up in such contrasty themes?
Not defending Carter, but if one is going to cite information, it should more comprehensive than a collection of disembodied quotes.
East Timor from Wiki.
Carter might well have done evil here, actively or passively. But the situation appears more nuanced than "Carter exterminates".

[ 17. July 2017, 17:21: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I have always thought the conventional wisdom on Carter was accurate: He was not one of our greatest presidents. But he is one of our greatest former presidents. It is what he has done since he was no longer president that impresses, not his time in office.
 
Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
<snip>
Carter might well have done evil here, actively or passively. But the situation appears more nuanced than "Carter exterminates".

For the record, your rhetorical technique of saying "well the situation is more nuanced than this bullshit quote I pulled out of thin air" sucks. Pardon me for pointing out that this guy you're thirsting to canonize has some blood on his hands.

[ 17. July 2017, 17:46: Message edited by: Fëanor ]
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I have always thought the conventional wisdom on Carter was accurate: He was not one of our greatest presidents. But he is one of our greatest former presidents. It is what he has done since he was no longer president that impresses, not his time in office.

Agreed. He is proof that being a good person - which I believe he is- does not automatically provide the skills necessary to being a great leader - which I believe he was not.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I have always thought the conventional wisdom on Carter was accurate: He was not one of our greatest presidents. But he is one of our greatest former presidents. It is what he has done since he was no longer president that impresses, not his time in office.

Agreed. He is proof that being a good person - which I believe he is- does not automatically provide the skills necessary to being a great leader - which I believe he was not.
Nor does being a foul person, as the present incumbent proves.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
<snip>
Carter might well have done evil here, actively or passively. But the situation appears more nuanced than "Carter exterminates".

For the record, your rhetorical technique of saying "well the situation is more nuanced than this bullshit quote I pulled out of thin air" sucks. Pardon me for pointing out that this guy you're thirsting to canonize has some blood on his hands.
I'm not campaigning for or against Carter. All I am saying is use more complete sources.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
"You just cannot rely on antichrists these days."

(although Trump is trying hard)

Nonsense. From a conversation about this today with a UK evangelical antichrist-obssessed acquaintance from my university days:
quote:
Trunp is pro Christian so not very likely [to be the antichrist]...
he defends Christian values, is anti abortion and anti homosexual, good guy

[brick wall]

Wolves will appear among you to deceive even the very elect, if that were possible.

Pretending to be Christian MUST BE the Antichrist's M.O. There is no way a non-Christian could fool the elect.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a longish article Financial Times.
A quote:

“To be sure, every politician has some element of narcissism, but he [Trump] has perfected narcissism, he has made it the supreme element of his life, and not only that, evangelicals have responded in an almost messianic way that he is the saviour, which makes him feel really good because he does believe he is the saviour,” Flynt says. “It is kind of curious evangelicals would not be offended by this. I am as an American Christian. I’m offended because I already thought following Jesus was going to make us great again.”
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nonsense. From a conversation about this today with a UK evangelical antichrist-obssessed acquaintance from my university days

I have a few antichrist-obsessed individuals who are acquaintances or past friends. Prior and just post the election that constituency was pushing various articles/videos/etc by (largely) Charismatic leaders pushing the 'Trump is chosen by God' line in various variations ("Trump is like Cyrus" was what they resorted to once the 'baby christian' line became worn).

So I'm not at all surprised to see your report of his reaction.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pretending to be Christian MUST BE the Antichrist's M.O. There is no way a non-Christian could fool the elect.

Agreed. In my more dispensationalist moments of anxiety I worry more about Macron, who is getting similar Messiah treatment, albeit from different quarters.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pretending to be Christian MUST BE the Antichrist's M.O. There is no way a non-Christian could fool the elect.

If you assign numbers to letters you can easily get the letters Ayn Rand to add up to 666. Just saying.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Does anyone know if anyone in the press has done profiles of all of the Trump children, their personalities, political positions, relationships with their father and each other, etc., in particular of Donald Jr. vs. Eric vs. Ivanka? I've seen lots written about Ivanka and Jared but much less about Donald Jr. and Eric, let alone side by side comparisons of them all (and Tiffany is written about least of all, but as has been noted in this thread and elsewhere she is in the outer orbit of Trump children). Barron is too young to have much worth writing about him other than the irresponsible speculation I have seen into his mental health, so I'm not interested in any profiles of him.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Both bringing out the worst in, and cynically exploiting, modern evangelicalism. That's a hat trick.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pretending to be Christian MUST BE the Antichrist's M.O. There is no way a non-Christian could fool the elect.

If you assign numbers to letters you can easily get the letters Ayn Rand to add up to 666. Just saying.
And there are some contemporary Christians who don't realize she's not a Christian.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I have always thought the conventional wisdom on Carter was accurate: He was not one of our greatest presidents. But he is one of our greatest former presidents. It is what he has done since he was no longer president that impresses, not his time in office.

Agreed. He is proof that being a good person - which I believe he is- does not automatically provide the skills necessary to being a great leader - which I believe he was not.
Some of us think he was a better leader than we wanted or deserved.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nonsense. From a conversation about this today with a UK evangelical antichrist-obssessed acquaintance from my university days:
quote:
Trunp is pro Christian so not very likely [to be the antichrist]...
he defends Christian values, is anti abortion and anti homosexual, good guy

[brick wall]
Right, he defends Christian values like sexually assaulting women, voyeuristically invading the dressing rooms of young female pageant contestants, not paying his workers...

Might suggest your acquaintance reads something other than Hal Lindsey and the "Left Behind" series. Rob Bell's "Love Wins" might be a good place to start...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pretending to be Christian MUST BE the Antichrist's M.O. There is no way a non-Christian could fool the elect.

Serious, sarcastic, or mixed, please? There are grounds for each. Thx.

[ 18. July 2017, 02:11: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pretending to be Christian MUST BE the Antichrist's M.O. There is no way a non-Christian could fool the elect.

Serious, sarcastic, or mixed, please? There are grounds for each. Thx.
Quite serious, assuming that such a beast as "the Antichrist" exists, or will exist. I'm not sold on that. But given that as a presupp, the A-C will perforce have to be (or appear to be) Christian, and a very charismatic one at that.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Both bringing out the worst in, and cynically exploiting, modern evangelicalism. That's a hat trick.

Hang on, a Hat Trick is a run of three. Am I missing something. [Confused]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Both bringing out the worst in, and cynically exploiting, modern evangelicalism. That's a hat trick.

I'm favourably impressed with how Vox has analysed the Christian community here.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm favourably impressed with how Vox has analysed the Christian community here.

Yes, I certainly think that that article has got a lot of things spot on - in terms of the general dynamics of the movement.

The other thing worth highlighting is the particularly conspiratorial type of mindset that generally buys into extreme end-times thinking, and again the article does well at showing how this mind-set influences the culture of the movement.

On which note, and further to the post about your anti-Christ obsessed acquaintance above I'd link here:

http://barthsnotes.com/2017/07/18/claim-donald-trump-has-secretly-arrested-3000-elite-paedophiles-and-satanists/

These are tangential figures in the scene - but they have links to the more influential, and such things tend to circulate third hand via magazines like Charisma and so on.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If there is an anti-Christ currently, it would be Mitch McConnell.

[ 18. July 2017, 14:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If there is an anti-Christ currently, it would be Mitch McConnell.

Agreed, but he has done one good thing! Trump wants to end the filibuster and change Senate voting rules so that 51 votes make a majority instead of the current 60 votes.

According to The Hill, as well as other sources, McConnell slammed the door on ending the filibuster in May, saying it “will not happen.”

“There is an overwhelming majority on a bipartisan basis not interested in changing the way the Senate operates on the legislative calendar,” he said.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Thanks be to God.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
That didn't keep him from bringing forward legislation under the reconciliation process, which only requires a simple majority.

A new thing, on the "Oops, I did it again" theme: Trump had a previously unreported hour-long meeting with Putin at the G20. I wonder what else they had to talk about, given that their earlier meeting had gone 4 times longer than planned.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
A new thing, on the "Oops, I did it again" theme: Trump had a previously unreported hour-long meeting with Putin at the G20. I wonder what else they had to talk about, given that their earlier meeting had gone 4 times longer than planned.

Now be fair, Ruth. Since the election, it has been MUCH harder for Putin to give his little toady instructions. They needed that extra time so that Putin could make sure that Trump understood what was expected of him. And you can imagine how hard that is, Trump being Trump. I imagine several times Putin had to shout "Pay freakin' attention, you moron! What are we paying you for?!?!?!"
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
A new thing, on the "Oops, I did it again" theme: Trump had a previously unreported hour-long meeting with Putin at the G20. I wonder what else they had to talk about, given that their earlier meeting had gone 4 times longer than planned.

Now be fair, Ruth. Since the election, it has been MUCH harder for Putin to give his little toady instructions. They needed that extra time so that Putin could make sure that Trump understood what was expected of him. And you can imagine how hard that is, Trump being Trump. I imagine several times Putin had to shout "Pay freakin' attention, you moron! What are we paying you for?!?!?!"
This is when I feel all the emojis
[Snigger] [Frown] [brick wall] [Help]

and finally [Votive]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
A new thing, on the "Oops, I did it again" theme: Trump had a previously unreported hour-long meeting with Putin at the G20. I wonder what else they had to talk about, given that their earlier meeting had gone 4 times longer than planned.

This is close enough to some of my interpreting assignments for me to offer an opinion.

On the one hand, it doesn't surprise me too much that an ad hoc meeting was arranged during the course of a larger dinner (source) to discuss (or continue to discuss) some matters that had arisen earlier.

On the other hand, it does surprise me that Trump did not have his own interpreter on hand during the larger dinner at which this private meeting took place (that part of the story appears to need clarification yet) and it surprises me even more that Trump did not enlist his own interpreter for the private meeting. While one is technically enough for such an encounter and I have served in similar capacity on occasion, at this level of diplomacy and given the stakes in US-Russia relations, I would have expected two, one from each side.

The lack of a US interpreter can be seen as conspiracy (nobody else there with Trump) or simply incompetence/hubris (they couldn't be bothered to book one for the evening) but what is for sure is that Trump is a fool for agreeing to the meeting on that basis.

Aside from language considerations, it's really bad psychologically to be going into such a meeting in the minority. One may dismiss the interpreter as just a piece of machinery but that is far from the reality in such settings.

That certainly tells us something about who has the upper hand in the Putin-Trump relationship.

[ 19. July 2017, 05:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Do you think Putin asked Trump for a loyalty pledge?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
No, I think that's tinfoil hat territory.

My most plausible explanation of the circumstances of this meeting is simply that Trump is completely out of his depth, probably believing that he knows how to handle such a situation.

Regardless of the actual status of the relationship between Putin and Trump, there's plenty to be alarmed about right there. His diplomatic corps must be in meltdown.

From personal experience I would add that it's more than likely that in any meeting with this degree of sensitivity, the interpreter will have had a briefing by their client (here, Putin), at the very least covering the key items the client wants to get across and where they want the meeting to go. The client may well ask the interpreter for their take on the meeting afterwards. Moreover, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Putin's interpreter was also an intelligence officer. To go into such a meeting without a similar person on one's own side is just dumb.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To go into such a meeting without a similar person on one's own side is just dumb.

I wonder if interpreters can be forced to testify to investigations ongoing in Congress. I have no idea - but if so, maybe it wasn't such a stupid idea to conveniently forget to take one with him.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
No, it was still stupid. Unless the OOO speaks fluent Russian. How does he know the interpreter was telling him what Putin was really saying? How can he be sure that his own words were accurately translated?

[ 19. July 2017, 08:03: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, it was still stupid. Unless the OOO speaks fluent Russian. How does he know the interpreter was telling him what Putin was really saying?

Maybe it didn't matter. If the Kremlin interpreter was saying something different to Putin then that's his problem.

Maybe the point here is that the Trump wanted to show that he was listening to the message rather than saying something important.

Of course the optics are bad, but why else would you go to a meeting with a world leader without your own translator?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, it was still stupid. Unless the OOO speaks fluent Russian. How does he know the interpreter was telling him what Putin was really saying?

Maybe it didn't matter. If the Kremlin interpreter was saying something different to Putin then that's his problem.

Maybe the point here is that the Trump wanted to show that he was listening to the message rather than saying something important.

Doing this kind of thing and doing it well is part of how I make a living. What you're saying is not how any of this works.

quote:
Of course the optics are bad, but why else would you go to a meeting with a world leader without your own translator?
In my view, as stated above, Trump did so because he is too full of hubris to realise that doing so is dumber than dumb.

He thought Putin was offering him a spontaneous chat and was too self-assured and self-important to get appropriate support in place to accompany him.

Like I say, this reveals who has the better handle on the relationship, regardless of tinfoil-hat-territory speculation as to whether Trump is in the pay of Putin. The former is enough to panic any seasoned diplomat. Trump is totally unreliable in international relations.

[ 19. July 2017, 08:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mr cheesy:
quote:
Of course the optics are bad, but why else would you go to a meeting with a world leader without your own translator?
Yes, "the optics are bad". That is the point. Further proof, if any were needed, that Ozymandias still fails to grasp the difference between politics and business. In a business deal you can say anything you like in preliminary negotiations and none of it is binding until the lawyers draw up the contracts and everyone signs on the dotted line. Politics doesn't work like that. He's just pissed off every other world leader in the G20 and given his political enemies at home more ammunition. For what? A cosy chat with his best mate? Nobody is going to believe there was nothing more to it than that. If there really was nothing more to it than that, then he's a fool.

Of course, we already knew that...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Chuckles sovietly...
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I wonder if Putin offered him a 'great' deal?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Doing this kind of thing and doing it well is part of how I make a living. What you're saying is not how any of this works.

I am not disparaging translators, I am trying to see into the mind of Trump beyond just calling him dumb. I'm sure it isn't how things are normally done, that's kind of irrelevant given that Trump seems to do things however he thinks at any given moment.

I appreciate calling him dumb is the easiest way to understand his actions, but I think it might help to think about why he might be doing things. Of course, YMMV.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Politics doesn't work like that. He's just pissed off every other world leader in the G20 and given his political enemies at home more ammunition. For what? A cosy chat with his best mate? Nobody is going to believe there was nothing more to it than that. If there really was nothing more to it than that, then he's a fool.

It looks like he thought that nobody was going to know and therefore it didn't matter. And that when he said it didn't matter, that would end the discussion.

I suspect the more he gets away with doing things like this, the more he is going to be emboldened to do it.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
This is possibly my favourite youtube video ever.

Sméagol reads Donald Trump’s tweets
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sure it isn't how things are normally done, that's kind of irrelevant given that Trump seems to do things however he thinks at any given moment.
(...) I think it might help to think about why he might be doing things.

To my mind the whole point is that he does indeed think on his feet with no concern for precedent or protocol.

(As I've said before, his "genius" or cunning is that he is incredibly good at capitalising on whatever mess his on-the-hoof actions have landed him up in - something I have observed in con artists before. This has served him well in business and even in domestic politics, but as Jane R correctly points out, international relations are another ball game entirely).

I've not done interpreting at G20 level, but I have done it at high enough levels to have learned, rather against my own personal instincts and preferences, that there are actually good reasons for protocol, and that breaching it (as the arrangements for this meeting did) is extremely perilous, not just for the person concerned, but for multilateral stability.

Nobody on the American side apart from Trump (not well-known for his reliable reporting) knows anything about what he said to Putin, for an hour. Think about that for a bit.

And just look at the precedent this meeting sets for other countries and their diplomatic relations with the US. The scariest aspect of the Trump presidency for me is his total unpredictability in, and one-man-band approach to, international relations, and the repercussions that might have in the short and long term.

As far as the "why" goes, my preferred explanation of this incident is simply that Trump is too disdainful of anybody else's advice or opinions to realise how foolish he's being. This example speaks to me very powerfully because of my experience in this field - it's probably more telling than Joe public may realise.

The only alternative explanation I can see is that Trump is so in bed with the Russians that he either a) saw them as being so much on the same side as him that the interpreter was effectively neutral in his eyes or b) had no choice but to comply with Putin's one-sided terms for the meeeting, but I think this explanation of his actions is in the realms of fantasy.

Besides, the more mundane explanation is plenty scary enough.

[ 19. July 2017, 08:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mr cheesy:
quote:
It looks like he thought that nobody was going to know and therefore it didn't matter.
Somebody always knows (a fact conveniently forgotten by conspiracy theorists, who have failed to realise that if the Moon landings had been faked the Soviet Union would have told the world back in the 60s). The man is a fool.

quote:
And that when he said it didn't matter, that would end the discussion.
He ought to know by now that only his toadies will shut up when he tells them to. Everyone else will go right on pointing and laughing. Still a fool.

quote:
I suspect the more he gets away with doing things like this, the more he is going to be emboldened to do it.
He hasn't got away with it: everybody knows about his 'private' meeting with Putin. However, he seems to be incapable of learning from experience (see above) so he will probably carry on regardless.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Somebody always knows (a fact conveniently forgotten by conspiracy theorists, who have failed to realise that if the Moon landings had been faked the Soviet Union would have told the world back in the 60s).

A tangent, but can't pass up the opportunity to link to this
quote:
Most Directors would have been content to use a large sound stage, but Kubrick insisted on shooting on location.
(and LVER, loving the Sméagol video!)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Most Directors would have been content to use a large sound stage, but Kubrick insisted on shooting on location.

Hahaha. That's excellent: the moon landings were faked on the moon!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It appears that the US has decided to give a terminally ill child citizenship so he can travel for treatment. If this is true, it shows the contempt that the WH has for British legal and medical processes [Frown]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Do you think Putin asked Trump for a loyalty pledge?

The pattern of interactions suggests he got that years ago
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
After the tumults of this year (God, has it only been nine months since the election? It feels like an eternity) we here have accepted it. What you see is what you get. There is no inner Donny, no secret master plan, no deep well of cunning that is laying spiderwebs for his foes to tumble into. It's all on the surface, plainly in view, less than a millimeter deep.
It does not even rise to the level of stupidity -- for that you need Rick Perry and the other members of the cabinet. (You've seen the meme, "We can get a better cabinet at Ikea.") It's all impulse, the need of the moment never linking to the need of the next moment. The only root is ego, the self, and even that isn't a deep tap root. There is no point in appealing to Lyin' Don's legacy, or his place in history, or his party. It's as deep as his wallet, the thickness of a Visa card, at the very uttermost.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No secret master plan?

Is Outrage!

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
After the tumults of this year (God, has it only been nine months since the election? It feels like an eternity) we here have accepted it. What you see is what you get. There is no inner Donny, no secret master plan, no deep well of cunning that is laying spiderwebs for his foes to tumble into. It's all on the surface, plainly in view, less than a millimeter deep.

I am not convinced. I think we're seeing more and more evidence of a deep, years-long partnership with Russian money-laundering schemes that has culminated in foreign influence over our election. That is a deep, secret-- and insidious-- "master plan" if ever I heard one (not that we haven't done the same to others...) otoh, I doubt very much if he was or is the mastermind behind such plan, and would agree that his grasp of the seriousness of his actions, their consequences, and the current situation appears minimal at best.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
I think it's stretching credibility to think that of some long game master plan - absent much direct evidence of that in itself.

I think the reality is that Trump ran a family business which centred around property deals and construction - all factors that increase the possibility of corruption of various sorts. I suspect that its impossible to operate for long in Russia - at any sort of scale - without further getting involved in at least low levels of corruption.

Furthermore, it's perfectly possible that Russia tried to manipulate the election - but then it's fairly likely that this isn't the first election they've tried to manipulate, and I have difficulty believing that they suddenly got good and succeeded (equally the US has tried to manipulate Russian elections in the past - at least since the 1990s).

So I don't think it's worth speculating conspiratorially, because it distracts from attempts to build a real case, and long term doesn't do the opposition to the system that led to Trump much good.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Most Directors would have been content to use a large sound stage, but Kubrick insisted on shooting on location.

Hahaha. That's excellent: the moon landings were faked on the moon!
Well, it did provide a marginal cost savings.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think the reality is that Trump ran a family business which centred around property deals and construction - all factors that increase the possibility of corruption of various sorts. I suspect that its impossible to operate for long in Russia - at any sort of scale - without further getting involved in at least low levels of corruption.

When you couple this with the fact that Trump has had trouble securing credit from Western banks due to his frequent bankruptcies (Deutsche Bank was the last one willing to extend him loans, and they were starting to get hesitant about it) and that investing in expensive American real estate is a favored method among Russian oligarchs and mobsters for laundering their money, the partnership seems obvious. Of course, having an American president whose fortune is in hock to a foreign dictator (or his close cronies, which amounts to the same thing) is problematic regardless of whether it was part of a long-term plan or merely an opportunistic move taking advantage of an existing situation.

I suspect the old Watergate methodology of "follow the money" will be just as applicable today.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think the reality is that Trump ran a family business which centred around property deals and construction - all factors that increase the possibility of corruption of various sorts. I suspect that its impossible to operate for long in Russia - at any sort of scale - without further getting involved in at least low levels of corruption.

When you couple this with the fact that Trump has had trouble securing credit from Western banks due to his frequent bankruptcies (Deutsche Bank was the last one willing to extend him loans, and they were starting to get hesitant about it) and that investing in expensive American real estate is a favored method among Russian oligarchs and mobsters for laundering their money, the partnership seems obvious. Of course, having an American president whose fortune is in hock to a foreign dictator (or his close cronies, which amounts to the same thing) is problematic regardless of whether it was part of a long-term plan or merely an opportunistic move taking advantage of an existing situation.

I suspect the old Watergate methodology of "follow the money" will be just as applicable today.

Not just investing in "some real estate" but specifically several documented examples of Russian oligarchs investing in Trump-owned properties at millions over market value.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... He thought Putin was offering him a spontaneous chat and was too self-assured and self-important to get appropriate support in place to accompany him......

There's also the possibility that Cheeto-in-Chief thinks that translators are for wussies who can't speak English. If Putin really was a great man, he'd be able to speak English, right? A bigly powerful leader should be able to talk to Cheeto one-on-one, man-to-man. What kind of loser doesn't speak English or needs help to figure out what's going on in a meeting?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well, yes, that's possible. Merkel and Macron both speak fluent English. No particular reason why Putin should bother to learn it, though. I've never heard he was fond of Western films.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Well, yes, that's possible. Merkel and Macron both speak fluent English. No particular reason why Putin should bother to learn it, though. I've never heard he was fond of Western films.

As far as we know, Putin speaks (in rough order of descending fluency) Russian, German, and English.

I can think of several reasons besides a fondness for Western films why a former KGB agent might have wanted to learn English.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Many years ago, I remember watching a press conference where Yasser Arafat berated the official translator and continued to translate his own speech into English. Of course, YA was a complete arse in many ways.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that our favourite ex KGB officer understood English. I bet he has all kinds of ploys to put others onto the back foot and gain something on them.

Trump may be a dumbass, but Putin is pretty good at playing these kinds of games IMO
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Switching hats from interpreter to prison chaplain for a moment, it is a favourite ploy of non-French inmates to enlist the services of a court interpreter even if they speak reasonable French: it gives you twice as long to consider your answers and/or a chance to hear the question twice.

[ 19. July 2017, 21:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
That can back-fire if the witness gets so fired up that they forget that they are supposed to wait for the interpreter. It goes to credibility.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
trump's only way of operation seems to be 'attack attack'.

Does he really feel so safe in his position that nothing causes him to pause for thought?

Trump is now attacking his own administration, including Jeff Sessions.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
That can back-fire if the witness gets so fired up that they forget that they are supposed to wait for the interpreter.

I imagine Putin has sufficient self control to avoid that - I thought it was relatively common knowledge that his English was relatively fluent.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well, I didn't know <Lady Bracknell voice> but I am not COMMON. <\Lady Bracknell voice>

There are other reasons for insisting on speaking through an interpreter besides not knowing the language of your interlocutor. A display of power. A fear of misunderstanding what's being said to you. A desire for support.

[ 20. July 2017, 15:48: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
There are other reasons for insisting on speaking through an interpreter besides not knowing the language of your interlocutor. A display of power. A fear of misunderstanding what's being said to you. A desire for support.

. . . The recognition that a professional interpreter might be able to pick up on nuances a fluent but non-native speaker might miss. This is particularly true of idiomatic expressions.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
This brought out interesting and confusing reactions for me.

Lots of criticism is floating around against Trump for handing Russia the upper hand in Syria. However two wrongs don't make a right.

Russian meddling in Middle-Eastern geopolitics doesn't make it a good idea for the US to meddle, and arming the enemy of my enemy has got the Middle-East more heavily armed and partisan, and less inclined towards actual democracy.

Even if Trump is doing it for completely the wrong reasons, the outcome is one I can agree with. So while two wrongs don't make a right apparently one wrong sometimes can. Confusing.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is an excellent character analysis of the incumbent and a free click to boot. It's a pity we have to devote so much energy to analyzing this worthless intellect, when we could be reading good books and thinking about worthwhile people. But Fallows has been a sharp observer for a long time.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Multiple sources are now reporting that Trump has his lawyers looking into presidential pardoning powers, for his aides, his family, and himself. Mueller is going to look into Trump's finances, which is likely to push Trump toward pressuring Rosenstein to fire him. Pundits have been predicting a full-blown constitutional crisis for months, and now I think we're starting to see what shape that might take.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Multiple sources are now reporting that Trump has his lawyers looking into presidential pardoning powers, for his aides, his family, and himself. Mueller is going to look into Trump's finances, which is likely to push Trump toward pressuring Rosenstein to fire him. Pundits have been predicting a full-blown constitutional crisis for months, and now I think we're starting to see what shape that might take.

The shape of a really poor episode of 'The Apprentice'?
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Bits of this seem relevant:

quote:
A French political scientist, Alain Rouquié, advances the term hegemonic democracy to describe regimes such as Erdoğan’s Turkey. He suggests these are not liberal democracies, because the rights of the minorities and the rule of law are not respected; but neither are they dictatorships as elections are held thus political alternation remains possible...Turkey, therefore, is split down the middle...Turkey has always been a divided nation but the rise of Erdoğan since 2002 has fuelled polarisation in the country. Indeed he has turned polarisation – ethnic, sectarian and cultural – into a political strategy. The opposition seems weak and divided.



[ 21. July 2017, 11:21: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Does Trump by any chance own any horses? One named Incitatus, for example?

[ 21. July 2017, 11:36: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Croesus:
quote:
. . . The recognition that a professional interpreter might be able to pick up on nuances a fluent but non-native speaker might miss. This is particularly true of idiomatic expressions.
...or in other words, fear of misunderstanding what's been said to you?

The First Lady of Japan has demonstrated another reason for using an interpreter...
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
A most prudent and sagacious lady. Her English seems rather more articulate and fluent than Trump's.

[Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Does Trump by any chance own any horses? One named Incitatus, for example?

He doesn't need them. He has Eric, Don Jr., Ivanka, etc. Want to bet that the next Supreme Court opening that appears dear Jared will step up?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Multiple sources are now reporting that Trump has his lawyers looking into presidential pardoning powers, for his aides, his family, and himself.

"Fun" legal fact: People who have received a pardon cannot refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, as they face no legal jeopardy for their truthful testimony. They do, however, face legal jeopardy for perjury if they lie or contempt of court if they refuse to answer questions.

Before handing out pardons it's usually wise to parse out who knows what and what damage their unfettered testimony could do to the as-yet unpardoned. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) no one in the Trump administration seems to be able to plan beyond the current news cycle.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Maybe a lawyer could answer this question (I will ask my daughter, in law school): isn't asking for a pardon tantamount to an admission of guilt? Clearly if you committed no crime you don't need to be pardoned.
Here is the POST's roundup of the current state of play.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Eek!]
You couldn't make it up.

America, you need to get rid of this incubus. Somehow. And soon.
[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Maybe a lawyer could answer this question (I will ask my daughter, in law school): isn't asking for a pardon tantamount to an admission of guilt?

I guess that depends on who is getting the pardon.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Maybe a lawyer could answer this question (I will ask my daughter, in law school): isn't asking for a pardon tantamount to an admission of guilt? Clearly if you committed no crime you don't need to be pardoned.
Here is the POST's roundup of the current state of play.

I'd say no, it means you think other people think you're guilty, to the point where they might act on it. Begging for a pardon as you're led to the scaffold for a crime you didn't commit isn't an admission of guilt, it's a desire to not be hanged.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Maybe a lawyer could answer this question (I will ask my daughter, in law school): isn't asking for a pardon tantamount to an admission of guilt? Clearly if you committed no crime you don't need to be pardoned.

Not necessarily. The implication is there and common sense would seem to lean in that direction, but while we may construe with our wits, courts must construe with the law.

One interesting fact is that, after receiving a pardon, the recipient is considered legally innocent of whatever they were pardoned of. For example, if they were filling out a form and were asked "have you ever been convicted of a felony" they could, legally, check the box that says "no", provided the only felonies they were convicted of they'd received pardons for.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Maybe a lawyer could answer this question (I will ask my daughter, in law school): isn't asking for a pardon tantamount to an admission of guilt?

I guess that depends on who is getting the pardon.
The Heritage Foundation is not exactly on the top of my list of reliable news sources, particularly in regards to Hillary Clinton.

fwiw, (this may prove to be an equally debatable source) Rachel Maddow's report last night included an expert suggesting that Ford carried with him always the words from the constitution that indicate that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt (to counter charges that he let Nixon off, Ford suggested that he was the one who got Nixon to admit guilt.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I did read an article that said a person who has received a pardon cannot plead the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying, but can be charged with perjury. So, pardoning Jr. Cheeto et.al., might not be the soundest legal strategy. Though use of the word sound in this manner, applied to this administration; is extremely optimistic.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Breaking news here in Ukland is that Sean Spicer has resigned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40687521

Comments?

IJ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Lots of criticism is floating around against Trump for handing Russia the upper hand in Syria. However two wrongs don't make a right.

Russian meddling in Middle-Eastern geopolitics doesn't make it a good idea for the US to meddle, and arming the enemy of my enemy has got the Middle-East more heavily armed and partisan, and less inclined towards actual democracy.

Even if Trump is doing it for completely the wrong reasons, the outcome is one I can agree with. So while two wrongs don't make a right apparently one wrong sometimes can.

I agree that if the Clinton administration had won the Election then there is little doubt the Alleppo meat grinder would still be churning, and a possible flare up between the US and Russia over Syrian intervention a greater risk than it is at present.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Breaking news here in Ukland is that Sean Spicer has resigned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40687521

Comments?

IJ

Seems like a postmature decision. Of course Spicer (apparently) didn't resign over principle, unless you count "careerism" as a principle.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Lots of criticism is floating around against Trump for handing Russia the upper hand in Syria. However two wrongs don't make a right.

Russian meddling in Middle-Eastern geopolitics doesn't make it a good idea for the US to meddle, and arming the enemy of my enemy has got the Middle-East more heavily armed and partisan, and less inclined towards actual democracy.

Even if Trump is doing it for completely the wrong reasons, the outcome is one I can agree with. So while two wrongs don't make a right apparently one wrong sometimes can.

I agree that if the Clinton administration had won the Election then there is little doubt the Alleppo meat grinder would still be churning, and a possible flare up between the US and Russia over Syrian intervention a greater risk than it is at present.
Russia's upper hand in Syria was courtesy of Obama. That point is beyond debate. Since Trump took over, their influence has been confronted and IS is scrambling. That is also beyond debate.

Maybe they colluded with the Trump campaign just for the nice NYC flats...
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Breaking news here in Ukland is that Sean Spicer has resigned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40687521

Comments?

IJ

Yep, front page headline on the POST. His replacement will be an argumentative wealthy financier, one Anthony Scaramucci. I suppose it is too much to hope that he closely resembles Melissa McCarthy. Poor Spicey surely had one of the worst jobs in Washington, and all for nothing. His reputation is now gone, he may have legal troubles, and he's going to go down in history tied to Lyin' Don's pants leg.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But is it bad news for The Odious Orange Ozymandias?

I do hope so.

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It shows (even more) flailing, bailing of the bilge, and rearranging of the deck chairs on the sinking ship. Every switchout of major personnel leads to some inefficiency, as the handover progresses. And he's popping new people in and out on a weekly basis, further crippled by the (sensible) inclination of all candidates of honesty and integrity to not want to climb onto the burning vessel. Crooked Don has always been toxic, hellish to work for, even agonizing to sit next to at dinner. He's never been able to attract top-tier people, and now he's down to the bottom of the barrel.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
More fun:

Trump thinks health insurance costs $12/year (PopSugar, referencing NY Times interview).

This may explain a lot. [Frown]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
(sigh) Every time we think we've hit bottom...

'Source close to WH press shop tells me Trump "wanted to give Scaramucci something to do because he likes him on TV"'
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
How on earth do you manage to put up with this idiot?

How on earth did you (general American you) manage to elect him as your President?

Six months in, and I still can't believe he's for real.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
How on earth did you (general American you) manage to elect him as your President?

Through the magic of the Electoral College!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thank you. I think...
[Paranoid]

Mind you, we Uklanders didn't even bother to elect our Prime Monster - we just got landed with her, willy-nilly.

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Russia's upper hand in Syria was courtesy of Obama. That point is beyond debate. Since Trump took over, their influence has been confronted and IS is scrambling. That is also beyond debate.

I don't know about beyond debate, but I think that these are in fact cogent points and deserve to be acknowledged.

I felt Obama was weak in not following up on his "red line" re: use of chemical weapons by Assad, was upset that he failed to close Gitmo, increased the number of drone strikes, and continued with extrajudicial killings. I don't think foreign policy was his strongest suit.

However, I would frankly be surprised if the recent successes in Syria are attributable to Trump personally, even given only the firsthand evidence we have of his character (i.e. not including allegations and hearsay).

I suspect what we see is the result of US chiefs of staff getting their way.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I would frankly be surprised if the recent successes in Syria are attributable to Trump personally, even given only the firsthand evidence we have of his character (i.e. not including allegations and hearsay).

I suspect what we see is the result of US chiefs of staff getting their way.

We haven't seen any huge shifts in Syria, either in American policy or in battlefield momentum. Since Trump took office Syria has mostly been following the same rough trajectory it was in the months prior to January 20, 2017. The one exception is a spike in civilian casualties. That could be because the Americans are being less careful in their drone strikes, or it could simply be a result of the ISIS being pushed from Mosul and Raqqa.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
On another matter, a Nixon-era memo from the Office of Legal Counsel on the question of whether the president can pardon himself has surfaced for some reason.

quote:
Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.
It was dated August 5, 1974. Four days later, Nixon resigned without pardoning himself. By what I am sure is sheer coincidence, one of the scenarios contemplated in the memo was the pardon of a president by his successor.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is worth one of your Washington POST clicks. It is profoundly sad: people scrambling for donated health care because they have no other way to get it.
The United States should not be this way.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I felt Obama was weak in not following up on his "red line" re: use of chemical weapons by Assad, was upset that he failed to close Gitmo, increased the number of drone strikes, and continued with extrajudicial killings. I don't think foreign policy was his strongest suit.

And I would prefer he was weaker still in some areas. I don't believe that drone strikes targeted on Assad are useful in dealing with a complex situation, and risks the apparent message that we care more about Sunni children dying in Syria than Shia children.

But the argument that he handed Russia an upperhand in Syria and Trump has sorted this out is hardly credible - Trump has given Russia the whole hand now. Not that I think that's a problem, I don't believe superpowers should be trying to get upper hands in the Middle East.

The choice in Syria at the moment is between Assad and ISIS. I don't believe we should be using military intervention in favour of either one. Attacking both is effectively a move in favour of establishing a failed state. (A more failed state then).
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
From day one of the noble, (some may sat naive), Syrian popular uprising the West has consistently said it was nervous of what would replace the Assad regime if it fell.

It's whole policy has been one of observation, tinkering, and maintaining this gruesome limbo we have seen for the last six years. The only reason the West did not want Russia to butt in on the side of Assad was because it knew the limbo bar would be removed.

However, if trump is going to deal friendly with putin then a Syrian Dictatorship need not be a problem to our, (oil), interests. Conversely if their relationship should fail; Well, cheap air travel and plentiful fuel for our vehicles will be the least of our worries.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The only reason the West did not want Russia to butt in on the side of Assad was because it knew the limbo bar would be removed.

Given the problems that Syrian refugees have given the politics of many European nations I very much doubt that the West prefers the state of war and chaos. Objecting to self-serving support given to a murderous dictator isn't necessarily suspicious.

To be honest, I can't think of a single useful thing the West can do in Syria apart from butt out and offer humanitarian help where it can.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
To be honest, I can't think of a single useful thing the West can do in Syria apart from butt out and offer humanitarian help where it can.

Which to be be fair was former foreign secretary Hague's chant from the start. The suspicion is though that moderate rebels have been backed by someone with a vested interest in wanting Assad gone.
I think anyone with just one shred of knowledge in this apparently broken region can agree that it has desended such a fractured and dangerous mess that a general consensus, or anything remotely resembling democracy, is as far away ever.
It is a failed experiment and that same someone, other than neighboring countries and mainland Europe, is obliged to help pick up the pieces.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
To be honest, I can't think of a single useful thing the West can do in Syria apart from butt out and offer humanitarian help where it can.

Which to be be fair was former foreign secretary Hague's chant from the start. The suspicion is though that moderate rebels have been backed by someone with a vested interest in wanting Assad gone.

Largely the West and NATO - initially supporting a number of disparate groups under the umbrella of the FSA, later other groups who were directly linked to extremist tendencies (such as Al Nusra)

When the Israeli Army - one of the best equipped in the region - has gone to war in the past, they generally need re-supply from abroad within a few weeks. The Syrian Civil War has now been going since 2011, with fairly wide spread action daily - that alone tells you about the amount of supplies being shipped in from abroad.

[ 22. July 2017, 14:02: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Quite. The problem with the Middle-East is not some fundamental flaw in the drawing up of country borders or impossibility of consensus because of the DNA of the humans living there, rather it is propping up murderous dictators for geo-political advantage and throwing generous arms supplies into whichever group is the current enemy of my enemy.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
How on earth do you manage to put up with this idiot?

How on earth did you (general American you) manage to elect him as your President?

Six months in, and I still can't believe he's for real.

IJ

I find that the BBC4 political satire that's like Rubbery Figures but with voices is an excellent salve for my occasional existential Trump crises. (DEAD RINGERS!!!) They have an excellent routine involving Trump and Spicer, with Spicer playing the role of nurserymaid. But never fear, there's plenty of other hilarity, including the exploits of David Davis the Brexit Bulldog and Michael "Govey here" Gove.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Quite. The problem with the Middle-East is not some fundamental flaw in the drawing up of country borders or impossibility of consensus because of the DNA of the humans living there, rather it is propping up murderous dictators for geo-political advantage and throwing generous arms supplies into whichever group is the current enemy of my enemy.

Proxy wars for oil, or bananas or french fries. Killing brown people. From east to west, from the Middle East to Indo-China to Guatemala. Same as it ever was. It is what makes us Great.

There's nothing in the DNA of anyone anywhere like you say. It is stupid and immoral to not consider everyone part of our human family. No one wants to see their house blown up, their mother and sister raped, father beheaded, their child shot. This very idea has been called out before: no, those "other people" are human. No, the DNA problem, if there is such a thing, it is within us Pogo*. trumpy is just more obvious about it.

Maybe it is more honest to be personally despicable, tweeting it to the world, than to appear to be polite and otherwise normal like his predecessors. So thank you trumpy for being as personally despicable as your nation"s policies since at least Johnson ordered troops into Vietnam. And, yes, we all benefit from the killing and resource transfer. Me included.


* We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us (Walt Kelly)
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Russia's upper hand in Syria was courtesy of Obama. That point is beyond debate. Since Trump took over, their influence has been confronted and IS is scrambling. That is also beyond debate.

Maybe they colluded with the Trump campaign just for the nice NYC flats...
[Roll Eyes]

Mate, if the substance don't get ya, the cover-up will
[Big Grin] Just ask Tricky Dicky. Maybe Trump should just save time and money and hand everybody a pardon with their White House Orientation package.

[ 24. July 2017, 07:11: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Bishop's Finger:
quote:
Mind you, we Uklanders didn't even bother to elect our Prime Monster - we just got landed with her, willy-nilly.
Not true. The electors of her constituency voted for her, when they had fine upstanding alternative candidates like Lord Buckethead to choose from instead.

Parliamentary elections are still run on the assumption that all the candidates are basically sane people who will Do The Right Thing if they get into power (even if they happen to like wearing buckets on their heads). This is clearly no longer true. If it ever was.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Dear Jared pretestifies, so we don't have to have an open session. He's not going to be under oath, but perhaps for this family oaths are irrelevant.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Dear Jared pretestifies, so we don't have to have an open session. He's not going to be under oath, but perhaps for this family oaths are irrelevant.

Nonsense. They adore loyalty oaths. It is the only way to make sure that everybody works for your good rather than the good of the country.
quote:
Jared Kushner stated:
"Let me be very clear - I did not collude with Russia, nor do I know of anyone else in the campaign who did so. I had no improper contacts."

It doesn't quite have the catchy cachet of "I am not a crook," but it will do.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Michele Bachmann assures us that Trump is a man of God. This is why Christianity in the US is in the decline.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
I wonder who thought it would be a good idea to let the President loose at a boy scout jamboree.

Still feeling shocked and bemused by each morning's fresh hellish headlines and live videos.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
Still feeling shocked and bemused by each morning's fresh hellish headlines and live videos.

I think that part's by design. The opposition gets distracted and worn down by endless scandals and Twitter storms.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that part's by design. The opposition gets distracted and worn down by endless scandals and Twitter storms.

Yes, I don't see the point of the endless speculatory news stories for the same reason. It diverts energies down the worst of conspiratorial thinking - even if a fraction of this proves to be correct, the energy required to defend it saps people from doing other things.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...and there you have the point. Sapping the energy of the opposition so we don't have any left for addressing serious issues...
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I'm torn. There is Napoleon's dictum that one should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. On the other hand, it would be a devilish clever strategy of "Look over there."

I heard a portion of the Boy Scout speech this morning, and was appalled, but it sounded as though there was some booing. I hope to catch it on CNN to verify this.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Sorry, I think I missed something. Ozymandias managed to screw up a speech at a BOY SCOUT JAMBOREE? How is that even possible?

Just to clarify; I don't think OOO is particularly bright himself. I think the people in charge of the media are. I give you the Daily Heil and Faux News as examples.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...ok, I found something about Trump's speech to the Boy Scouts.

I would say 'he's completely lost the plot' but I have yet to see evidence that he ever found it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Sorry, I think I missed something. Ozymandias managed to screw up a speech at a BOY SCOUT JAMBOREE?

Transcript here

Starts out well:
quote:
Tonight we put aside all of the policy fights in Washington, D.C.
but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Perhaps there wasn't booing. the guardian has this summary which is cringe-inducing. Have at.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
I hear the arguments around deliberate creation of distractions and that may be a regular ploy. But the unhinged and inappropriate weirdness is what gets me. In a an odd way it reminds me of Hunter S Thompson going Gonzo under the influence of a drug cocktail, but without the zany creativity.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think that like Brexit, it's the end product of a culture that prefers narrative over facts.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Has anyone reviewed Ozymandias' medication lately?

[Eek!]

Dear God, what a load of inconsequential rubbish the man doth spew out. Worse than some sermons I've heard...

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's a lot of analysis available about Li'l Donny's health -- you can google on it. He is famously unwilling to eat healthy, believes that exercise diverts energy from other useful activities, doesn't even walk onto the green when he golfs. Also he sleeps (by his own testimony) only 4-5 hours per night. Most people, maintained on such a regimen, would be cranky, distractible, make bad decisions, be unable to plan -- oh, wait!
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I'm torn. There is Napoleon's dictum that one should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. *snip*

I have long loved this quotation, which I have seen a thousand times proven in political, ecclesiastical, and bureaucratic circles. Desperate for the original French text, I sleuthed a bit and found out that Boney had nothing do do with it.

Sad.

[ 25. July 2017, 16:18: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But His Imperial Majesty did say this:

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

Another classic.

[Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I thought that was a quote from Sun Tzu?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
A quick google confirms Napoleon, including some actual historical documents.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
We live and learn [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
On the subject of quotable stuff, John McCain returns to the Senate with an impassioned speech to return to following the traditions of the Senate, show a willingness to compromise and stop trying for one-party rule in all things. There are a couple of quotables in the speech, but right now my favorite is:
quote:
Stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood.
Although, I have to admit that the following (a little long for a convenient sound bite) is a very close second:
quote:
This place is important. The work we do is important. Our strange rules and seemingly eccentric practices that slow our proceedings and insist on our cooperation are important. Our founders envisioned the Senate as the more deliberative, careful body that operates at a greater distance than the other body from the public passions of the hour.

We are an important check on the powers of the Executive. Our consent is necessary for the President to appoint jurists and powerful government officials and in many respects to conduct foreign policy. Whether or not we are of the same party, we are not the President’s subordinates. We are his equal!


 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
And yet he's voted for a bill with no detail and no real discussion. Seems like a contradiction.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Not to mention rubber-stamping presidential appointees with even fewer qualifications for their jobs than the present occupant of the White House.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And yet he's voted for a bill with no detail and no real discussion. Seems like a contradiction.

It was a procedural vote to allow the bill to be debated. No action on the actual health care bill yet; just debate. And McCain has said he will NOT vote for anything that looks like the current Senate version.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And yet he's voted for a bill with no detail and no real discussion. Seems like a contradiction.

No. He voted to consider the bill. As you no doubt read in his talk, he expressly states that he will not vote for the bill itself as it now stands. Or, to quote him:
quote:
I voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. I will not vote for the bill as it is today. It’s a shell of a bill right now. We all know that. I have changes urged by my state’s governor that will have to be included to earn my support for final passage of any bill. I know many of you will have to see the bill changed substantially for you to support it.
In short, he did not vote "for" the bill--he voted to allow the bill to be debated. As it should be.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Not to mention rubber-stamping presidential appointees with even fewer qualifications for their jobs than the present occupant of the White House.

And he seems to regret that:
quote:
Our deliberations today – not just our debates, but the exercise of all our responsibilities – authorizing government policies, appropriating the funds to implement them, exercising our advice and consent role – are often lively and interesting. They can be sincere and principled. But they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than any other time I remember. Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we’d all agree they haven’t been overburdened by greatness lately. And right now they aren’t producing much for the American people.

Both sides have let this happen. Let’s leave the history of who shot first to the historians. I suspect they’ll find we all conspired in our decline – either by deliberate actions or neglect. We’ve all played some role in it. Certainly I have. Sometimes, I’ve let my passion rule my reason. Sometimes, I made it harder to find common ground because of something harsh I said to a colleague. Sometimes, I wanted to win more for the sake of winning than to achieve a contested policy.

We have been waiting for our elected officials to wake up. McCain seems to have awoken. At this point, criticizing that he was asleep before is pointless. Would you rather he stayed asleep, stayed a mindless sheep rubberstamping the President? If not, then applaud his current course.

[ 25. July 2017, 22:34: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I'll applaud him once I see that he's putting his vote where his mouth is. It won't be the first time one of our illustrious senators has said "Yes yes yes" but pulled the "no" lever at the voting table.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This link should work: a graphic representation of John McCain's courage and integrity. Free and SFW. I am so glad I voted correctly in 2008.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I like McCain, and I liked that speech. I think he does good work behind the scenes. I think he's a voice of moderation in the Republican party.

I was watching PBS Newshour this morning. They reported a whisper that the Secretary of State is getting itchy feet. I wonder if Mitt Romney will accept another dinner invitation from Trump?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I'll applaud him once I see that he's putting his vote where his mouth is. It won't be the first time one of our illustrious senators has said "Yes yes yes" but pulled the "no" lever at the voting table.

In a later vote, McCain voted "yes" on a procedural motion that would effectively have allowed the BCRA to move forward in its current form. The procedural vote was defeated, thus AIUI opening the way for a much broader debate.

To this outsider, McCain's vote seems to go right against what he had said hours earlier.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Fuck John McCain. He waxed poetic about "the injustice and cruelties inflicted by autocratic governments" and then turned right around and voted in favor of the Senate plan with Cruz's and Portman's amendments. It would have rolled back Medicaid expansion, reduced subsidies in the exchanges, allowed insurance companies to offer super shitty health insurance plans like they used to (affordable but worthless if you really needed care), and eliminated the mandates to buy health insurance. 9 other Republicans did vote against this turd of a bill, so they'll move on to the "repeal and delay" vote tomorrow morning. McCain got his health care at the Mayo Clinic, but the less fortunate can go sit and spin for all he cares.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I did a bit of reading around and found this on McCain from 2008.

My insight is that one reason for the high proportion of evangelical christians that voted for these guys is that a) unlike those they voted for, many are themselves fundamentally honest and decent, coupled with b) have been brought up to respect those in authority almost unconditionally. Coupled in the case of Trump with c) an innate distrust of "worldly" media.

The idea of there being such a disconnect between the narrative spun by a politician like McCain and his actual behaviour is simply right outside their frame of reckoning.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This link should work: a graphic representation of John McCain's courage and integrity. Free and SFW. I am so glad I voted correctly in 2008.

I love the graphic.

I'm also glad I voted correctly every time he has run for Senator, as well as when he ran for President.
[Biased]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Your politics is all emotion isn't it?
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
So President Trump has just announced he will not allow transgender individuals to serve in the US military in any capacity.

What about all the trans people already serving? Will they be fired or given dishonourable discharges or what? I suppose their participation and service will simply be erased from the records.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
So President Trump has just announced he will not allow transgender individuals to serve in the US military in any capacity.

What about all the trans people already serving? Will they be fired or given dishonourable discharges or what? I suppose their participation and service will simply be erased from the records.

Like a lot of Trump policies, this seems to be trying to take credit for policies already in place. From a RAND Corporation study on lifting the ban on transgender individuals to serve openly in the U.S. military [PDF]:

quote:
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) policies have rendered both the physical and psychological aspects of “transgender conditions” as disqualifying conditions for accession and allow for the administrative discharge of service members who fall into these categories.
RAND goes on to conclude that the additional expense of allowing transgender service members to serve openly is fairly minimal. A summary of their report can be found here, for those who lack the spare time to slog through over 100 pages of dense report.

Of course, this could be prelude to Trump stepping up enforcement of the existing ban. I can think of few things more likely to negatively impact morale than that kind of witch hunt (to borrow a Trumpian phrase).

[ 26. July 2017, 15:05: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
In the Obama era, the Secretary of Defense issued orders to start preparations to allow transgender people to serve in the military.

Trump is saying that he's stopping that process.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
I hear what you're saying, but Joshua Block (@JoshACLU), an ACLU attorney, on Twitter posted this: 'If you are a trans service member or reservist please contact me. If you know a trans service member or reservist tell them to contact me.'

So that process initiated under Obama must be fairly well along and being implemented.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
So President Trump has just announced he will not allow transgender individuals to serve in the US military in any capacity.

I suspect this is partly about political positioning, and there appears to be indications from some quarters that this is the case:

http://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/890202683721863168

Or at least the rest of the right wing are content to have it function that way.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, it's another bone he's throwing to those people who believe that this is a Christian nation. It is proven to be nothing of the sort.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Is Ozymandias ever going to do anything positive, worthwhile, and helpful to other people?

Apart from resign or die, of course.

IJ
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Even more ironic than rain on your wedding day...

US embassy in South Korea displays rainbow flag of gay pride

That's from not even two weeks ago. Maybe this will prompt Trump to actually start filling some positions in the State Department?

[ 26. July 2017, 17:56: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Is Ozymandias ever going to do anything positive, worthwhile, and helpful to other people?

Apart from resign or die, of course.

IJ

[cudgeling brains]
Well, they did manage to organize and stage the White House Easter Egg Roll. And it went well, no tweets or gropes at all!
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Anybody else wondering if Trump is throwing fuel on the culture war fire to distract people from something?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Probably. But the scrabbling and futility of it is noticeable. You can distract the public for a little while until the next thing comes along (Dr. Who! Brad Pitt! Princess Diana!). But there are forces that cannot be diverted; the independent counsel's investigation of the Russian collusion business is a prime example. I am certain that Crooked Don would give anything to make that all go away.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
I was thinking more in terms of things that may still be underground that aren't necessarily being investigated because the fourth estate is so predictable... But I guess we'll see.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To this outsider, McCain's vote seems to go right against what he had said hours earlier.

In his speech, McCain suggested the bill should return to regular order, i.e. be discussed in committee etc. before being put to the vote.

A Democrat put a motion to that effect - and McCain, along with all the other GOP senators, has voted no.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Anybody else wondering if Trump is throwing fuel on the culture war fire to distract people from something?

Someone, on this thread I think, suggested it is a play to hamper the Democrats in the mid-term election.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
That's certainly the next big thing, the mid terms.

Personally, I think that there are enough Journos and late night hosts to pre-digest everything that Trump cares to throw at us. I don't think coverage of his stupidity will prevent people from covering his lies, corruption and incompetence.

But I'm an optimist.

That said, I find myself less and less drawn to late night shows on you-tube. Maybe I'm finally becoming an adult...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
So President Trump has just announced he will not allow transgender individuals to serve in the US military in any capacity.

I suspect this is partly about political positioning, and there appears to be indications from some quarters that this is the case:

http://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/890202683721863168

Or at least the rest of the right wing are content to have it function that way.

Yes. To saysay's point, this is ALL about distracting us from the Russian investigation that's getting very very close to home. Events Monday looked very much like some members of Trump's inner circle are about to turn State's evidence. Then we get the BSA speech-- distraction. Then yesterday we get the tweeted bombshell transgender order.

As if that wasn't horrible enough, we also yesterday had this particularly nasty bit of business:
Trump goes postal on undocumented immigrants

I live in a border town and sanctuary city with a large number of gangs and a large number of undocumented persons. Yes, our gangs are a serious and sometimes deadly problem. But what Trump is describing here is not at all what we're experiencing-- rather, it strikes me as gore porn not far removed from snuff films.

More to the point, the immigrants that have been deported here in LA are not M13 members, but rather pastors and teachers, students, and housewives, mothers and fathers who have lived here peacefully for decades. This latest amplification has me particularly frightened. I can't see how this can possibly end well.

I'm married to a Canadian citizen, so unlike most of those targeted by Trump, have an accessible path out of Trumpland. What would be involved in re-establishing the Underground Railroad?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm married to a Canadian citizen, so unlike most of those targeted by Trump, have an accessible path out of Trumpland. What would be involved in re-establishing the Underground Railroad?

A stable of hot red-blooded Canadians willing to take on mates? You're setting Miss Amanda's petticoats aflutter!

Seriously, though, I wish the news media would stop calling him President Trump. If they all took to calling him simply Donald Trump, maybe my stomach wouldn't turn so much whenever I hear his name.

I still have to press the mute button every time he is shown opening his mouth.

The breaking point has to come soon. Dear God, hear the prayers of your people.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
More to the point, the immigrants that have been deported here in LA are not M13 members, but rather pastors and teachers, students, and housewives, mothers and fathers who have lived here peacefully for decades. This latest amplification has me particularly frightened. I can't see how this can possibly end well.

[Votive]

This is completely outside my experience, living with such uncertainty. It's hard even to imagine. I know that the USA has been struggling with undocumented immigrants for decades now. Previous discussions I recall have talked about pathways to citizenship. Its amazing that things have come to this essentially throw your hands up approach.

I feel very sorry for everyone uprooted in this way.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Even more ironic than rain on your wedding day...

US embassy in South Korea displays rainbow flag of gay pride

That's from not even two weeks ago. Maybe this will prompt Trump to actually start filling some positions in the State Department?

Perhaps, though the lack of a U.S. ambassador to South Korea at the moment (Trump hasn't even nominated one) is probably important for other reasons as well. Other potentially important countries without a current U.S. ambassador include France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia. You'll be relieved to know, however, that the U.S. does have (pending Senate approval) an ambassador to someplace called Religious Freedom.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Zoroastrians and Wiccans and Sharia advocates rejoice!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the POST:
'During a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, on Tuesday, President Trump dismissed critiques about his behavior by declaring himself the most “presidential president” of all presidents except for Abraham Lincoln.'

A more deep analysis of Li'l Donny's pathology. The one upside of this entire mess is that novelists will have situations and characters to use for the next century.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I thought his hard-on was for Andrew Jackson?
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Don't sweat it. Next week it'll probably be someone else. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That speech sounds as if he is modelling himself on Duterte.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Any bets on just how long it will take for him to issue an Executive Order to have his own face put on Mt. Rushmore? "Get rid of that Washington guy! Time to drain the swamp! Put my face first! It is so ordered!"
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
That speech sounds as if he is modelling himself on Duterte.

He wouldn't be the first. Joko Widodo, Indonesia's President has recently authorised the use of lethal force against 'drug dealers' who 'resist arrest'.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
He's not modelling himself on anyone, IMO. He's under the delusion that the president of the US is an absolute monarch, like Louis XIV. I thought you people had a revolution about something like that (not that George III thought himself an absolute monarch at all, but your polemicists seemed to think he did).

John
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
He's not modelling himself on anyone, IMO. He's under the delusion that the president of the US is an absolute monarch, like Louis XIV. I thought you people had a revolution about something like that (not that George III thought himself an absolute monarch at all, but your polemicists seemed to think he did).

John

I'm wondering if there was an English monarch that came close to his incompetence? King John? Edward II?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The Washington POST's Opinion page at this moment includes these headlines:
Say Hello to a Post-America World
Anthony Scaramucci's Vulgar New Yorker Interview Is Beyond Words
The Worst is Yet to Come
It's Time to Start Thinking the Unthinkable
The President Can Be Indicted, Just Not By Mueller
Trump Should Fire Scaramucci But He Won't

Of course the Opinion page is a bubble of its own, but I do see a hardening of feeling. (MY favorite: Get Ready, Stephen Colbert is Making An Animated Comedy About the Trumps)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
White House comms director Scaramucci: 'I'm not Steve Bannon, I'm not trying to suck my own cock'. -Scaramucci.

You can click further to the New Yorker from what I linked to see what else this paranoid maniac the head paranoid maniac appointed as his communications director said besides "fuck". More than a little projection going on. This disintegration of your governance and country is all in prime time.

Outstanding. Pussy grabbing. Cock sucking. What's next? In any decent banana republic your CIA would have assassinated and arranged a revolution by now. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
The skinny repeal bill has been narrowly defeated.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Thanks to John McCain. I'm so happy to have been so wrong.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
One theory is that McCain took the bullet to allow of bunch of Rep senators to vote yes so as to escape them being primaried. And/or the GOP leadership realised there was no way they could effectively repeal/replace the bill right now so having painted themselves into a corner, they needed a sacrificial lamb.

Such explanations of McCain's vote certainly make more sense to me in the light of his voting record of "party first" and what I've learned about the guy in recent days; I therefore suspect as much political calculation as deeply-held principle.

His statement still claims Obamacare was "rammed through".

Whatever the truth of his motives, I guess the outcome is the same for now though.

[ETA and RuthW how could you possibly omit the continued resistance, in the face of threats, of two courageous female GOP senators throughout this entire process? Or the grassroots campaigning by Indivisible et al?]

[ 28. July 2017, 07:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
One of those rare moments of sheer relief to hear that the skinny repeal bill has been defeated.

And, in other news, I wonder if Scaramucci has realised it might not be the smartest idea for a new WH communications director to shove an eensy bit too much cocaine up your nose before calling a reporter on the New Yorker and speaking your mind, obscenities included?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
He's not modelling himself on anyone, IMO. He's under the delusion that the president of the US is an absolute monarch, like Louis XIV. I thought you people had a revolution about something like that (not that George III thought himself an absolute monarch at all, but your polemicists seemed to think he did).

John

I'm wondering if there was an English monarch that came close to his incompetence? King John? Edward II?
I think there was someone back before the conquest, in the time of St Dunstan, who had to drag the guy out of bed to get to the coronation - he was in bed with his girlfriend and her mother.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The damage these people are doing to their office is unbelievable. I feel like sending the transcript of the Scaramucci interview to some of my acquaintances who are US evangelical GOP faithful and inviting them to respond.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[ETA and RuthW how could you possibly omit the continued resistance, in the face of threats, of two courageous female GOP senators throughout this entire process? Or the grassroots campaigning by Indivisible et al?]

Because I was not surprised by those things. Why do you care?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[ETA and RuthW how could you possibly omit the continued resistance, in the face of threats, of two courageous female GOP senators throughout this entire process? Or the grassroots campaigning by Indivisible et al?]

Because I was not surprised by those things. Why do you care?
Saying "Thanks to John McCain" to the exclusion of anybody else implies nobody else was deserving of thanks.

From this distance, he still looks like a shameless opportunist to me.

For my part, I'm glad to see that the kind of grassroots mobilisation that I expressed a hope of seeing upthread appears to be producing results.

And I reserve the right to care about whatever I like.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
MaryLouise--

quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
And, in other news, I wonder if Scaramucci has realised it might not be the smartest idea for a new WH communications director to shove an eensy bit too much cocaine up your nose before calling a reporter on the New Yorker and speaking your mind, obscenities included?

We need to bring back Rahm Emmanuel, who was on Obama's staff. He had quite a temper and quite a mouth. He left, and IIRC became mayor of Chicago. Would be fun to put R in a room with S, get them talking, and televise it. For hours, if necessary.
[Devil]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

From this distance, he still looks like a shameless opportunist to me.

So more along these lines:

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2017/07/a-long-time-senate-staffer-on-john-mccain/535050/
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Saying "Thanks to John McCain" to the exclusion of anybody else implies nobody else was deserving of thanks.

It's not what I meant to imply. Collins and Murkowski stood firm all week, as you noted -- so that made McCain's vote the one that put the thing over the edge. I don't feel bad about not giving credit to Indivisible and others agitating against this whole thing, given that I was one of them.

quote:
From this distance, he still looks like a shameless opportunist to me.[/qb]
Could be. Hard to say. He's got a bad brain cancer, and is very unlikely to live long enough to come up for re-election. He might have been looking to his legacy. He might have liked the attention; he did refer to the vote as "the show."

quote:
[b]For my part, I'm glad to see that the kind of grassroots mobilisation that I expressed a hope of seeing upthread appears to be producing results.

You've been very dubious about the Democrats and their message for 2018 and 2020 -- have you seen their new thing? "A Better Deal"

quote:
And I reserve the right to care about whatever I like.
I didn't question your right to care; I simply wondered why you did.

[ 28. July 2017, 08:33: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't feel bad about not giving credit to Indivisible and others agitating against this whole thing, given that I was one of them.

Good on you. Sincerely. I'd like to think I'd be doing the same thing in your place.

quote:
You've been very dubious about the Democrats and their message for 2018 and 2020 -- have you seen their new thing? "A Better Deal"
Sounds promising. Perhaps they're reading this thread [Biased]

quote:
I didn't question your right to care; I simply wondered why you did.
Firstly, I have a tangential knowledge of public health and believe universal health care to be a good thing both morally and economically.

Secondly, I fear the train crash of the current US administration is likely to have knock-on consequences not only in terms of stability for the rest of the world, but also in terms of what is deemed acceptable (and even "successful") behaviour for office-holders.

Thirdly, the cognitive dissonance generated by people known to me who I otherwise believe to be decent and God-fearing individuals apparently thinking that this kind of thing deserves their unremitting support is getting to me.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I feel like sending the transcript of the Scaramucci interview to some of my acquaintances who are US evangelical GOP faithful and inviting them to respond.

Please do! It will make for very interesting reading.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
God bless John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

Now can the CiC be stopped from persecuting transgender folk WHO ARE PREPARED TO DIE FOR THEIR COUNTRY?! Fucker. (That's self loathing too of course, not so long ago I wouldn't have let women or gays serve). And I should pray for this man?! WHAT?! What can I pray for this world leader, this most powerful of men?

[ 28. July 2017, 13:28: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Pray for the strength to forgive him.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
In a fictional context I invented an award, the Iron Ovary. It is awarded to women of notable courage -- I envision it as a lapel pin. Some friends and I are ginning to make this a real thing, and the two Senators are going to be the first recipients. (There will be an Iron Ovary Second Class, to be awarded to men with the courage of women, later.)
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
She is the Murkowski who won an election as a write-in candidate isn't she? If so, she doesn't have much to fear from disendorsement.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Pray for the strength to forgive him.

Perfect.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Now can the CiC be stopped from persecuting transgender folk WHO ARE PREPARED TO DIE FOR THEIR COUNTRY?! Fucker.

A spineless bastard who used deferments and ouchy feet to avoid the military.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Well, the generals (mentioned by Trump in his tweet) are actually saying they will wait until they get actual orders (via chain of command) and also saying that they want to treat everyone who serves with respect.

Trump still doesn't seem to get that tweeting does not make policy, and he doesn't seem to understand chain of command, either (among the many, many, "billions and billions" of things he doesn't understand)

sabine
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In a fictional context I invented an award, the Iron Ovary. It is awarded to women of notable courage -- I envision it as a lapel pin. Some friends and I are ginning to make this a real thing, and the two Senators are going to be the first recipients. (There will be an Iron Ovary Second Class, to be awarded to men with the courage of women, later.)

Something to aspire to!
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Instead of "A Better Deal", what would be a better slogan for the Democrats heading into 2018 and 2020?

How about "Competent Government"?

Or "Return to Sanity"?

Or "Abandon the Dark Side"?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
She is the Murkowski who won an election as a write-in candidate isn't she? If so, she doesn't have much to fear from disendorsement.

Yes, in 2010. Plus she's not up for re-election until 2022. She's also the daughter of Frank Murkowski, who held the Senate seat she now occupies immediately prior to her. The Murkowskis are to Alaskan politics what the Kennedys are to Massachusetts politics. So no, she doesn't have much to fear from the Trump administration.

On the other hand, the Trump administration might have something to fear from her.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Instead of "A Better Deal", what would be a better slogan for the Democrats heading into 2018 and 2020?

How about "Competent Government"?

Or "Return to Sanity"?

Or "Abandon the Dark Side"?

No, no, and no. The Democrats need to start being FOR something and not just "at least we're not those other guys."
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I hear you. What would be a better slogan?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Make America Work for Everybody

This Land is Our Land

We take Care of Our Own

Moving Forward Together
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The damage these people are doing to their office is unbelievable. I feel like sending the transcript of the Scaramucci interview to some of my acquaintances who are US evangelical GOP faithful and inviting them to respond.

At least now we know what happens when you "drain the swamp"--the slime comes to the top.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We take Care of Our Own

Surely that's the current unpublished slogan of the Republican Party. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Shameless attention seekers or not, all three R no votes got hand-written thank you notes from me today. I'm sure that alone will make it all worthwhile.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Looks like Priebus is out.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We take Care of Our Own

Surely that's the current unpublished slogan of the Republican Party. [Ultra confused]
He might have been thinking of this.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Looks like Priebus is out.

Rats tossed from a sinking ship? I suspect Scaramoush_scaramoush will one day embody the maxim of Matthew 26:52 or Genesis 31 ... a nasty piece of work it seems and there will be many more tears yet.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I've been thinking more along the lines of Mark 3:25 of late.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Shameless attention seekers or not, all three R no votes got hand-written thank you notes from me today. I'm sure that alone will make it all worthwhile.

Excellent idea. Must track down some stationery.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Has it always been this mental? Has there ever been a president this un-presidential? I mean I LOVE Lincoln. FDR. Kennedy. Johnson. Warts and Nams and all. Even Reagan had some very smart people, as did Bush Jnr. who actually had charm. And was marginally less insane than Johnson. What is this 3rd rate loser going to do about North Korea?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is very very unusual. Longtime professional observers are in agreement on this. I could find you links, but it's everywhere.
My son (who follows this even more closely than I do) reports that the latest trajectory, now that Priebus is gone, is for a White House at war with its own Congress. There is now now channel from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. This will, naturally, work out great; the historical precedent is Tyler, who refused to be of either party and so got nothing done.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
"Nothing done" may be the best we can now hope for.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a free click, columnist Frank Rich's blog. I think he has hold of the real secret. Pondering all the foofaraw of this week (my God, do you realize how much has happened?!?) he notes:
"At this juncture the priorities of Donald Trump have winnowed down to a single agenda item: saving himself and his family from legal culpability for their campaign interactions with the Russians and their efforts to cover up those transactions ever since. Almost everything this president does must be viewed through this single lens. If you do so, you’ll find his actions usually make sense."
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Pray for the strength to forgive him.

And for him to get the help and healing he needs. And for him to go to the place of his highest good--which, certainly, isn't the White House.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a free click, columnist Frank Rich's blog. I think he has hold of the real secret. Pondering all the foofaraw of this week (my God, do you realize how much has happened?!?) he notes:
"At this juncture the priorities of Donald Trump have winnowed down to a single agenda item: saving himself and his family from legal culpability for their campaign interactions with the Russians and their efforts to cover up those transactions ever since. Almost everything this president does must be viewed through this single lens. If you do so, you’ll find his actions usually make sense."

He's got right up the nose of some of the very best people in America. The very best. And they're nasty! Oh! They are nasty people!

I wait in hope for a comeuppance of the uuugest proportions, so that America can become the fairest nation on earth.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

You just want it to become "the fairest nation on Earth" so that we don't all immigrate to Oz. (Canada will be full up.)
[Biased]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
He's got right up the nose of some of the very best people in America. The very best. And they're nasty! Oh! They are nasty people!

Sad.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Someone needs to give T a child's toy cell phone that seems real, but doesn't actually send anything.

ETA: Also a full set of Legos and Lego people, and a wide variety of blocks and building kits, so he can replace whoever he wants, and play with that silly wall.

[ 29. July 2017, 07:07: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sad.

Given the way it was reported on our news this morning it feels to me as if Mr. t is tightening his grip on power.

As much as we ain't seen nothin' yet, many are wondering just how long this will remain the case. Particularly as Ol' Kim over there is evermore hellbent on prodding a sleeping Giant.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I cling to the Constitution and the other two arms of Government Royln. I don't think he's angling for a royalist revolution, but having been just listening to the story of the restored Bourbon Monarchy in France, Trump seems to be drawing inspiration from King Charles X the Simple.

Just for clarification, I listened in Australia, not France.

In response to an earlier comment, I personally welcome any and all refugees from the States. It's too cold in Canada. [Smile]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Thanks to John McCain. I'm so happy to have been so wrong.

Me too and I've been bad-mouthing McCain for many years. Maybe it is possible for people to change, maybe he's actually become the noble person he was only pretending to be for so long.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, maybe we've not got long to wait now for Armageddon, orchestrated by Kim Wrong-Trim and The Odious Orange Ozymandias:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40760583

Perhaps someone needs to buy TOOO his pretend cell-phone, and his Lego, NOW.

Mind you, I'm not sure I believe what K W-T says, any more than I believe what TOOO says.

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
No, I think Some Trusted White House Advisor (assuming that's not an oxymoron) needs to suggest that 44.2 invite himself to go to North Korea for a deal-making session ("I make the best deals!") with Mr. Kim One Point Two.

With a bit of luck, Kim will jail the Orange Orangutan as a Western spy and Christian missionary, and return him to us only when in extremis.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
When he, Mr. Kim, is in extremis , or when Ozymandias himself is in extremis?

IYSWIM.

I'm not sure even Mr. Kim, egregious fruitcake though he be, deserves to have Ozymandias on his hands....

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
When he, Mr. Kim, is in extremis , or when Ozymandias himself is in extremis?

IJ

I was assuming that the elder whacko, deprived of steak, ketchup, and hair stylist, would languish first, but you have a point. Having 44.2 on your hands for more than 24 hours would be exhausting, as we all now know to our sorrow.

On reflection, I'm not sure it matters publicly who reaches the in extremis goalpost first. Perhaps they could compete?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I forget who it was, somewhere on one of these US presidency boards, who suggested that activism, marching with pussy hats, etc. was unlikely to make any difference.
Here you go, a nice story about what made the difference this week.
A quote: "But the critical mass of opposition came from liberal groups that had never been so threatened or so organized. MoveOn, battle-hardened by the effort to prevent (and then end) the war in Iraq, ran an aggressive protest and media campaign, including tens of thousands of calls to congressional offices and a series of rallies in swing states that featured Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

They were matched by tens of thousands of more calls from a constellation of groups and by protests organized by everything from ADAPT, a disability rights organization, to the Democratic Socialists of America. Planned Parenthood, which was threatened with zeroed-out federal funding if repeal succeeded, organized nationally and hyper-locally, with key states quickly growing their activist networks.

Here is a second similar story which is a free click.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The more, the merrier, so it is said.

Hopefully, Ozymandias will soon be reduced to the two vast and trunkless legs of stone...

IJ
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
I was reading a Slate piece about the euphemisms the media have been using to describe Scaramucci's sexual vulgarities.

I wish there was some way that every conservative Christian who voted for Trump could be forced to read only the non-bowdlerized versions of those articles. I mean, this is what they VOTED for, right? These are the guys they wanted the whole country to listen to for eight years.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Dear God no. FOUR years. FOUR. Or fewer if possible.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I forget who it was, somewhere on one of these US presidency boards, who suggested that activism, marching with pussy hats, etc. was unlikely to make any difference.

I expressed doubt about the impact of pussy hats on the perpetrator.*

Activism with regard to healthcare seems a bit different to me.

==

*I like the idea of the Iron Ovary awards, though, and the Iron Ovary (Second Class) ones too. Not least because they assert something overhwhelmingly positive in a delightfully subversive way.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the POST, the devil discusses the details of the contract with one of his customers.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The more, the merrier, so it is said.

Hopefully, Ozymandias will soon be reduced to the two vast and trunkless legs of stone...

IJ

Nice. And oh dear God yes please.

Though there may be need for us to wander in the Thwumpian wilderness with this demonic Ozymandias for a while yet. I've long argued that Thwump is God's judgement on the West / so-called Global North (not just the USA). The hair shirts may need a little more time out of the cupboard, alas, until those of us on the liberal-compassionate end of human politics learn to get off our fat chuffs and fight again.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Thanks to John McCain. I'm so happy to have been so wrong.

Me too and I've been bad-mouthing McCain for many years. Maybe it is possible for people to change, maybe he's actually become the noble person he was only pretending to be for so long.
I am wondering whether there was a procedural reason why McCain voted yes to the motion to allow debate and then no on the substantive vote. My reason for wondering is that turtle-man (name escapes me right now) looked really gutted when the vote went down, like he'd been led to believe something that didn't happen.

Did the vote on the motion to allow debate start a clock ticking? Or perhaps there's a limited number of times a bill can be voted on in the senate?

I just got the impression that McConnell looked like he'd been dudded. Also, the Dem's reaction seemed a bit over the top for me, considering how many ways there must be to skin a Congressional cat. Maybe it was just typical American exuberance, but it was like McCain had scored a massive hit.

We have been talking about policies and campaign strategy for a while, but I think what happens after the election is also critical, particularly in the American system which I read somewhere was designed for compromise. I think McCain is right if he was saying that for the USA to get the right legal framework in place for prosperity and fairness, members of Congress need to be able to talk to each other. You can't just get a majority and ram your agenda through Congress like its possible to do under the Westminster system. You have to be able to do deals, which means you have to know the other side. You have to know who will give ground and where, and also where you will give ground too.

I suspect wily, tricky, slippery like an eel McCain is better suited to that deal-making environment. In this one, where there seems to be a wide gulf as well as personal enmity between the parties, McCain looks a bit off precisely because he is a fixer, a congressional rorter, and not a man to stand on his principles. I think Congress could use a few more like him.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I suspect wily, tricky, slippery like an eel McCain is better suited to that deal-making environment. In this one, where there seems to be a wide gulf as well as personal enmity between the parties, McCain looks a bit off precisely because he is a fixer, a congressional rorter, and not a man to stand on his principles. I think Congress could use a few more like him.

According to Collins dictionary online, "rorter" means "a small-scale confidence trickster."

Is there another meaning they're not mentioning?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I can't find the link for it now, drat it. But yes, it was important for McCain to do it that exact way. If he had voted 'no' the previous day (the one about refusing to allow debate) the bill was still alive and could have been brought back again later on, somehow. By voting it down at that exact point the bill cannot now be brought back under the 'budget reconciliation' banner, thus passing with 51 votes. It has to be brought back in the standard mode, which calls for 61 votes to pass. Which is to say it will never pass.

It's not dead yet -- there are ways to bring the zombie back to shamble down the streets still. But, if stalling can be achieved until this session of Congress is over, then it all resets. A new bill has to be proposed and pass through the House before it can go to the Senate.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A new bill has to be proposed and pass through the House before it can go to the Senate.

Not quite. A new bill can start in and pass the Senate and then go to the House.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can't find the link for it now, drat it. But yes, it was important for McCain to do it that exact way. If he had voted 'no' the previous day (the one about refusing to allow debate) the bill was still alive and could have been brought back again later on, somehow. By voting it down at that exact point the bill cannot now be brought back under the 'budget reconciliation' banner, thus passing with 51 votes. It has to be brought back in the standard mode, which calls for 61 votes to pass. Which is to say it will never pass.

I don't think this is correct. The special rules for budget reconciliation can only be used once per fiscal year; reportedly, the Republicans planned to use this year's for health care and next year's for tax reform. But since they've yet to pass a plan, they're haven't yet used up this year's opportunity - if they can somehow round up 50 votes, they can try again.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Apparently they can indeed put it back on the schedule or however you say it, and it'll be back. However, the current status cannot be encouraging and we may hope that another spine or two may grow among the GOP senators.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I came across this today.

It contains the following succint quote about Trump and his presidency.

quote:
to the 81% (typo corrected) of white evangelicals who voted for President Donald Trump, he declares:

You voted for a leader who has "zero moral compass."



[ 31. July 2017, 01:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From a Twitter feed, @BettyBowers: "Dear Fellow Republicans: It is so important to take every opportunity to remind other Americans that you are Christians. Otherwise, how would they ever guess?"
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I suspect wily, tricky, slippery like an eel McCain is better suited to that deal-making environment. In this one, where there seems to be a wide gulf as well as personal enmity between the parties, McCain looks a bit off precisely because he is a fixer, a congressional rorter, and not a man to stand on his principles. I think Congress could use a few more like him.

According to Collins dictionary online, "rorter" means "a small-scale confidence trickster."

Is there another meaning they're not mentioning?

It's a bit pejorative, but it's essentially what I meant. I don't dispute the meaning at all. Maybe if I had called him a Congress Whisperer people would feel better about him?

Brenda, great tweet. [Killing me]
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Something about recent events make me think of Rome a couple of thousand years back. Are we now in the period when the republic declines through civil war into empire, or are we already in the empire phase? In the latter case, is Trump to be viewed as Caligula or as Nero?
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Something about recent events make me think of Rome a couple of thousand years back. Are we now in the period when the republic declines through civil war into empire, or are we already in the empire phase? In the latter case, is Trump to be viewed as Caligula or as Nero?

I made that precise observation - I think on this thread. One who he certainly is not is Augustus. I'd go for Vitellius.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is argued that a more modest reboot of the entire GOP, purging all the current incumbents and replacing them with people who are not zombies, would suffice. Jennifer Rubin is the 'conservative' POST columnist, but she has been so sensible and intelligent this season that I fear she no longer speaks for real conservatives.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Vitellius reigned for just 8 months in AD 69, and is described as 'lazy and self-indulgent, fond of eating and drinking, and an obese glutton, eating banquets four times a day, and feasting on rare foods he would send the Roman navy to procure.'

He was executed by Vespasian's soldiers, and succeeded by the said Vespasian AD 69 - AD 79), a much better character, even though little is known of his reign.

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Something about recent events make me think of Rome a couple of thousand years back. Are we now in the period when the republic declines through civil war into empire, or are we already in the empire phase? In the latter case, is Trump to be viewed as Caligula or as Nero?

I've just finished a podcast on the fall of the Republic, and I go back and forth. I think the only realistic answer is that in some ways we look to be recreating the conditions under which the Republic fell (particularly in income inequality and the entrenchment of the very wealthy in seats of power), but in other ways (particularly in terms of open and outrageous corruption) we have a ways to go.

I also think it is easy to get carried away in the narrative.

I remember when Obama was elected, I heard one priest refer to it (joyfully) as our Country's "crossing the Rubicon" moment. Shortly after that election, there was a major production of Julius Caesar with the title role played by a black man- clearly identifying Obama with Caesar, the man who forced reforms that benefited the people on an unwilling and aristocratic senate.

Now, the major production of Julius Caesar portrays Trump as Caesar, the dangerous wannabe dictator who is willing to trample on republican norms to achieve his ambition, as we hope that the Senate has enough guys in the mode of Cato to stand up to him.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Well, that was quick!

Any bets on who Trump's next Director of Communications will be and how long he/she will last?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
The BBC is reporting that Scaramucci is out as communications director. Two observations:
quote:
White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci is out of the job after less than 10 days in the post.
Dear G-d, has it only been ten days??
quote:
The decision was made by Mr Trump's new chief of staff, John Kelly, US media report.
And that would be on his FIRST day in the job!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
The decision was made by Mr Trump's new chief of staff, John Kelly, US media report.

And that would be on his FIRST day in the job!

Speaking of John Kelly:

quote:
New White House chief of staff John Kelly was so upset with how President Donald Trump handled the firing of FBI Director James Comey that Kelly called Comey afterward and said he was considering resigning, according to two sources familiar with a conversation between Kelly and Comey.

Both sources cautioned that it was unclear how serious Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security, was about resigning himself.

"John was angry and hurt by what he saw and the way (Comey) was treated," one of the sources said.

Whoever these leakers are they seem to want to make sure that Trump doesn't trust Kelly from here on out. Quite the cannibal feast at the White House these days.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Good grief. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
@JaxAlemany
Anthony Scaramucci was escorted from White House grounds today after ouster, per source familiar with the scene

The New York Times article I cited concluded with "It was not clear whether Mr. Scaramucci will remain employed at the White House in another position or will leave altogether." If Ms. Alemany's tweet is accurate it now seems a little more clear.

Having the Secret Service escort you from the building rather than some corporate rent-a-cop seems like it would be extra humiliating.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And his personal life has been sacrificed on the altar. This is from the GUARDIAN: "Scaramucci’s wife Deirdre filed for divorce recently while nine months pregnant with their second child. The now-ousted White House communications missed the birth last Monday because he was traveling with Trump on Air Force One."
Heck, I'd divorce him too.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Why marry him in the first place?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O no, have pity on the poor man, cooped up on a plane with Ozymandias...... [Ultra confused]

But WTF is happening? Does Ozymandias trust anyone ? Surely, he's soon going to run out of lambs for the slaughter.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What this does show is that nobody of competence or sense would take a job in this Administration. There may be a more toxic work place but I can't imagine it.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Yikes. Somebody married that guy? And allowed him to beget spawn on her? Well, at least she's "woke" now.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Oh well, he's gone then.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Elect a clown, expect a circus.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So if I follow the sequence of events, Sean Spicer resigned because having Anthony Scaramucci forced on his department was a bridge too far. Spicer was fine with the lying and treason-lite, but the Mooch was just unbearable. Scaramucci goes on to engineer the firing of obvious anagram Reince Priebus. This leads to John Kelly replacing Priebus as White House chief of staff and Kelly's first act is to fire Scaramucci. Almost immediately after that CNN runs a story citing two anonymous sources saying Kelly is sympathetic to also-fired ex-FBI Director James Comey, harming Kelly's effectiveness in his new job on day one because nothing gets Trump's ire up like a Comey-lover.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But how long can Ozymandias go on hiring-and-firing like this?

ISTM that the White House is in the process of imploding...

[Disappointed]

How unlike the home life of our dear Queen.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But how long can Ozymandias go on hiring-and-firing like this?

ISTM that the White House is in the process of imploding...

[Disappointed]

How unlike the home life of our dear Queen.

IJ

It also compares unfavorably with the previous administration. It's been observed that the Obama White House did not have any leaks of this nature. There were leaks made by various people to burnish their own reputations, and the kinds of 'leak' that advance the White House's agenda (e.g. here's a preview of the Affordable Care Act and several reasons why it's great!), but there were no leaks from White House insiders designed to harm the president or hamper his agenda.

Which I guess is just the Republicans being true to their philosophical position that government doesn't work.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Surely the longer this imbroglio goes on, the more difficult it will become for Trump to find anybody, qualified or not, competent or not, to fill any position connected with this administration?

Not that qualifications or competence other than naked-ambition-married-to-crass-ignorance appears to justify hirings in the eyes of the alleged boss.

At some point, even invitations to the Supreme Court bench must become tainted, squelching the hopes of those inching toward a very conservative Court.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
What a shambles.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
ohher wrote:

quote:
At some point, even invitations to the Supreme Court bench must become tainted, squelching the hopes of those inching toward a very conservative Court.
Well, it depends. Once you get through the confirmation and you're on the court, you're not working at the White House. And I'd assume that any extended involvement with said domicile is actually discouraged for SCOTUS members.

So, if you're a right-wing judge somewhere, and your name gets handed to Trump for a court seat, you might not really care about how tainted the administration itself is. Just sit through the hearings(now with a GOP majority committee), and you're set for life, and never have to talk to the President again.

Unless, of course, your own nomination itself is somehow tainted with corruption, in which case it could be damaging, yeah.

[ 31. July 2017, 20:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Those of us on t'other side of the pond don't have much room to talk (Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary? [Help] )

Nevertheless, it's sad and dispiriting to watch the heart of a great nation disintegrate. No doubt Mr. Putin is chuckling sovietly...

IJ
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
^^ I'd also point out that SCOTUS judges don't generally seem to carry the aura of the president who appointed them. Byron White was widely viewed(or, at least by liberals) as a cranky old man who wanted to roll back protection for criminal defendants and women seeking abortions. I think it was pretty rare that anyone heard his name and wistfully thought "Ah, Camelot!"

[ 31. July 2017, 20:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
To borrow a phrase I liked on twitter:

"it is genuinely feeling like the UK and US administrations are having an incompetent-off."
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Those of us on t'other side of the pond don't have much room to talk (Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary? [Help] )

Nevertheless, it's sad and dispiriting to watch the heart of a great nation disintegrate. No doubt Mr. Putin is chuckling sovietly...

IJ

Some Canadians(and, interestingly enough, quite a few Americans) seem to think that they DO have "room to talk", what with St. Justin supposedly setting a wonderful counterexample of repsonsible leadership in action.

Funny thing is, though, Trudeau is actually one of the few world leaders who seems to get along with Trump, or at least makes a point of appearing to do so, and Trump has returned the favour by mentioning him favourably in the State Of The Union address.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, that was quick!

Any bets on who Trump's next Director of Communications will be and how long he/she will last?

Ivanka? Or possibly Donald Junior, who has shown such a sure touch when handling sensitive communications.

Cue many satirical skits featuring revolving doors and ejector seats.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

I just got the impression that McConnell looked like he'd been dudded.

I've never seen any picture of him where he doesn't look like a blob fish with a cracker up his gills.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, that was quick!

Any bets on who Trump's next Director of Communications will be and how long he/she will last?

Ivanka? Or possibly Donald Junior, who has shown such a sure touch when handling sensitive communications.
That whole mess was what, two weeks ago? No one is talking about it now. I'm somewhat skeptical of the entire "it's all a distraction!" line, preferring the explanation that they really don't know what they are doing and it's all chaos all the time. But if this is supposed to be distracting us from that story, it seems to be working.
 
Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
^^ I'd also point out that SCOTUS judges don't generally seem to carry the aura of the president who appointed them. Byron White was widely viewed(or, at least by liberals) as a cranky old man who wanted to roll back protection for criminal defendants and women seeking abortions. I think it was pretty rare that anyone heard his name and wistfully thought "Ah, Camelot!"

I'm not really a SCOTUS expert but my impression is that since Dubya, Republican appointments (at least) have been pretty consistently ideological. Reagan and Bush I appointed some more centrist judges who disappointed their core constituencies. That doesn't happen any longer. Anthony Kennedy is the last if these appointments and he is over 80. If he retires or dies while Trump is in power the SCOTUS will likely have a majority of fiercely ideological conservatives. The results could be, er, interesting.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
OK. If this were a novel, your editor would be saying, gently, "Dear, I think there's such a thing as going too far."
The headline says it all: Scaramucci erroneously listed as dead in Harvard Law directory.
The POST goes on to report, "It’s unclear whether he was the victim of a prank — or just a typo. Harvard Law didn’t say, but the school was apparently crimson-faced over the flub. “Regrettably, there is an error in the Harvard Law School alumni directory in the listing for Anthony Scaramucci,” a spokeswoman told us in an emailed statement. “We offer our sincere apologies to Mr. Scaramucci. The error will be corrected in subsequent editions.”"

And, on Twitter, some wit posts, “It is sobering statistic that 7 out of 10 Americans will serve as Donald Trump’s White House Communications Director.”
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, and one more POST link, but this is solid gold. Alexandra Petri channels the OT on behalf of the Mooch.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, and one more POST link, but this is solid gold. Alexandra Petri channels the OT on behalf of the Mooch.

A little too early to say that both Hollywood and New York will reject him. But great form.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Brenda said:
quote:
And, on Twitter, some wit posts, “It is sobering statistic that 7 out of 10 Americans will serve as Donald Trump’s White House Communications Director.”

Joke of the year!!!

I hate it when people compare Trump to historical figures, even terrible ones. I imagine him thinking to himself, "Huh, a Roman Emperor. My people love me, and I deserve it."

The Moochie bites the dust. Trump knows all the best people...
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Over at the POST columnist Dana Milbank reports, with some wonder, "He wasn’t officially supposed to start until Aug. 15, so his tenure, technically, was minus 16 days."
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Whence satire now?

I enjoyed Croesus's post from which I extracted this:

quote:
Scaramucci goes on to engineer the firing of obvious anagram Reince Priebus.
Maybe if I were watching satirical shows on US TV this would be old news, but I went a-googling for such anagrams; amongst the best was 'penis brie cure'.

On that subject (anagrams, not penis brie) I was reminded that the host of our local (and sadly, lamented) comedy club went by the excellent sobriquet 'agra man' [Smile]

[ 01. August 2017, 00:53: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There are many, many tweets today on the subject,
(here's a partial roundup) but the funniest so far is "I guess we know how Steve Bannon is going to celebrate."
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
My fave: "He got hired, divorced, had a baby, and fired in 10 days. Like a fruit fly."
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Why marry him in the first place?

He changed? His first wife is suppose to be a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter.

I wouldn't blame him for not showing up for the birth given the request for the divorce had already been filed. He wasn't wanted.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Whence satire now?

I enjoyed Croesus's post from which I extracted this:

quote:
Scaramucci goes on to engineer the firing of obvious anagram Reince Priebus.
Maybe if I were watching satirical shows on US TV this would be old news, but I went a-googling for such anagrams; amongst the best was 'penis brie cure'.
Maybe it's my cultural blinkers, but I find it really hard to believe someone is actually called Reince Priebus. I also automatically spoonerise it to Prince Rebus.

Then we have Scaramucci, whose name slips so easily into the Queen song that it's almost lazy.

I'm thinking of laying a bet on someone called Pressy McPressface being hired next.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
You'll all be delighted to know that if you bump Bohemian Rhapsody up to 6 mins from its length of 5.57 (to make the working easier in my head) Mr S lasted 2,400 plays in office.

[ 01. August 2017, 12:02: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
"Mama, life had just begun
but now I've gone and thrown it all away..."
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
"Mama, life had just begun
but now I've gone and thrown it all away..."

Rumour has it he was actually fired for being unable to do the fandango...
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
“Late Night” host Seth Meyers has pointed out that "“Scaramucci’s last name is longer than his tenure.”
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A friend of mine remarks, "I keep laughing full, deep belly laughs today. Turns out Scaramucci was *great* for my abs."

Oh, and this will amuse. A free click, SFW, for Star Trek fans.

And will no one have pity upon the poor TV comedians? Think of the unlucky Mario Cantone. He could've had a long thrilling career!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And will no one have pity upon the poor TV comedians? Think of the unlucky Mario Cantone. He could've had a long thrilling career!

Best line, from Seth Meyers: “If Scaramucci was Viagra, it wouldn’t even be time to call your doctor yet.”

[ 01. August 2017, 15:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It's still hard to understand how America has descended so far down into the pit of Hell so quickly after the (apparently) benevolent rule of Mr. Obama.

Did he pull a plug somewhere before he left?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
And now it turns out that the Don dictated Don Jr's explanation of his meetng with the Russians in June 2016. Big Oops. Verges closer to obstruction of justice.

If the Don continues to attack the Republican members of Congress, this type of information will give them the excuse to start impeachment proceedings.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Best line, from Seth Meyers: “If Scaramucci was Viagra, it wouldn’t even be time to call your doctor yet.”

[Killing me]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It's still hard to understand how America has descended so far down into the pit of Hell so quickly after the (apparently) benevolent rule of Mr. Obama.

Did he pull a plug somewhere before he left?

[Paranoid]

IJ

ISTM this is a blend of the increasing polarisation of American politics and the reaction to a charismatic, black Democrat.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Apparently the next big push will be to revise the tax code. The Republicans probably think of this simply as lowering the taxes of the rich. The tax code is very long and needs serious attention. Is anyone at all actually trying to do this well? Are there serious proposals?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
"Mama, life had just begun
but now I've gone and thrown it all away..."

My worry is the thunder and lightening and very very frightening stuff. It's already frightening of course...

Great line Doc Tor.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And now it turns out that the Don dictated Don Jr's explanation of his meetng with the Russians in June 2016. Big Oops. Verges closer to obstruction of justice.

Not necessarily in and of itself, but it does go towards establishing the "guilty mind" (i.e. that the accused knew what they were doing was wrong) that's usually a necessary component of obstruction of justice.

I think it's kind of illustrative when paired with the recent allegation that Trump was working with Fox News to plant the fake news story that Seth Rich was secretly assassinated by the DNC. I think this demonstrates two things:

  1. Trump believes his problem is PR, not an active investigation into potential crimes
    -
  2. Trump is running his White House like a closely-held family business that he can personally micro-manage

I'm not sure either of these delusions are sustainable in the long run, but I'm not sure what the alternatives would be for Trump. He doesn't seem to be able to handle problems that aren't strictly about public relations nor does he seem to know how to run a large operation that requires delegation of authority.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
He doesn't seem to be able to handle problems that aren't strictly about public relations

To me, he doesn't seem to be able handle problems that are strictly about public relations. Unless you consider repeated lies and misrepresentations as "handling PR problems."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Before the Mooch finally vanishes over our event horizon, and new, more appalling events wipe him from our memory, one more tweet roundup.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
By far my favourite headline in the Washington Post this week (so far) included the words "An oral history of the Scaramucci era". Ten whole days of madness that would make a great film when this is all over. Eras are getting smaller.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
This had me in stitches.

Upon a reporter suggesting that he got a mixed reaction at the Boy Scout Jamboree:

quote:
"They loved it. It wasn't — there was no mix. That was a standing — From the time I walked out on the stage — because I know. And by the way, I'd be the first to admit mixed. I'm a guy that will tell you mixed. There was no mix there. That was a standing ovation from the time I walked out to the time I left, and for five minutes after I had already gone. There was no mix."
A week's worth of quotes for that "Shit Donald Trump Says" 364-day calendar that's going to be a hit this Christmas.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
This had me in stitches.

Link didn't work. Try this.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
A week's worth of quotes for that "Shit Donald Trump Says" 364-day calendar that's going to be a hit this Christmas.

I can't think of a single person I despise enough to give that to.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
A good comment I found today -

"Geat decision by the big orange Pigsy to appoint Kelly as Chief of Staff and inject some military style discipline into the Administration.

Well, it would be a great decision if the Marine Corps taught it's officers how to herd cats. Vicious, nasty, self interested cats. I suspect they don't, they are leaders of obedient puppy dogs, not cats. Shit sandwich coming up for the good General."

Too true [Killing me]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a good summary of the root of this Administration's difficulties. You can run a taut ship (hopefully, some day, the good Lord willing) but you still need to set a course and have a port to be your destination. And there is no destination, only vague slogans.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Trump has been quoted very recently saying that the White House is a dump.

Chelsea Clinton had a good reply to that:

"Thank you to all the White House ushers, butlers, maids, chefs, florists, gardeners, plumbers, engineers & curators for all you do every day."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a good summary of the root of this Administration's difficulties. You can run a taut ship (hopefully, some day, the good Lord willing) but you still need to set a course and have a port to be your destination. And there is no destination, only vague slogans.

There are many lessons to be learned from this cluster-fuckup, though none will be.
Competent and semi-competent presidents has only been tangential to the typical process. Which was to obtain lower office prior to the presidency. Cheeto's money and reality-show publicity allowed him to bypass that process.
It could certainly happen again.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Is there any truth to the idle thought that Reece Peebus will one day have the respect of his colleagues? His is the significant sacking, I feel.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Is there any truth to the idle thought that Reece Peebus will one day have the respect of his colleagues? His is the significant sacking, I feel.

Especially given how long he was chair of the GOP.

p.s. *Reince Preebus
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A good comment I found today -

"Geat decision by the big orange Pigsy to appoint Kelly as Chief of Staff and inject some military style discipline into the Administration.

Well, it would be a great decision if the Marine Corps taught it's officers how to herd cats. Vicious, nasty, self interested cats. I suspect they don't, they are leaders of obedient puppy dogs, not cats. Shit sandwich coming up for the good General."

Too true [Killing me]

I am going to go out on a limb and say, based on reading, that Kelly could be the person to clear up Trump's clusterfuck - within the terms of nasty Trumpite politics of course, because that ain't gonna change.

However, I'd like to be a fly on the wall, because it will at some stage involve Kelly sitting #45 down and saying, in that gloriously polite language that only Americans can manage, "Mr President, sir, I advise you to step away from that phone. Put the phone down sir. Thank you sir. And I advise you to run every statement that you make past me before you speak, sir. To hone, polish and expedite verbal conveyance of your unparalleled brilliance, sir, yes sir. And I stipulate that no statement that I have approved be altered in any manner, form or way after I have approved it. To ensure your continued unapproachable unsurpassibility, sir. Sir? Put that fucking phone down, sir."

And I think that has fucklies of being a long-lasting arrangement.

[ 03. August 2017, 05:22: Message edited by: Zappa ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly, reportedly, already had a behind-closed-doors fight with T--Wed. morning, I think.

Personally, I still hope that T will get so sick of fighting people who tell him he's not all that (e.g., crowd sizes, popular vote, behaving inappropriately) that he'll have a big hissy fit, then quit. (Preferably without blowing anything up on the way out.) Taking all his family and minions with him.

Given Russian meddling, I'd love it to have Trump's victory thrown out as tainted, and give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. Doubt that would happen, but I think it would be fair.

I also wish there were ways to totally reverse everything T has done, preferably all in one fell swoop.

(And Pence should *not* take over, because he's part of the tainted Republican ticket.)
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Given Russian meddling, I'd love it to have Trump's victory thrown out as tainted, and give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote.

Many petitioned for that to happen between November and January. Should have.
quote:
(And Pence should *not* take over, because he's part of the tainted Republican ticket.)
Paul Ryan would be next in line. From disastrous lines of succession . . . good Lord, deliver us!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Somewhere upthread I posted the link to the Real Lens, through which all the White House shenanigans must be viewed. It is Russian collusion. To scotch that investigation is now the sole imperative of Lyin' Don, and any action to that end is allowable in his mind.
So: will he resign in a huff? Only if someone (who? Pence?) will undertake to pardon him (not necessarily even Jared & co., I think he'd throw the kids off the sled to save himself). It would be pleasant if Pence reneged on that promise, reluctantly, compelled by events, it's in the Bible, his wife told him to, etc. There would be a poetic justice to that, the liar caught by a lie.
But this must be the end game. There's many a long winding road before that day. Before he resigns in a huff, I think there will be foreign complications. A war, probably -- invading somebody. Reagan was clever enough to pick Grenada, a walkover. I fear that Crooked Don will choose North Korea, far away and full of people who are not white. If I were the South Koreans I would worry, and start buying lobbyists.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Given Russian meddling, I'd love it to have Trump's victory thrown out as tainted, and give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. Doubt that would happen, but I think it would be fair.

I also wish there were ways to totally reverse everything T has done, preferably all in one fell swoop.

(And Pence should *not* take over, because he's part of the tainted Republican ticket.)

From your lips to God's ears. (With thanks to Mousethief for this wonderful saying.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
This article from New York Times seems useful in understanding how compromising people and manipulating them works. It suggests to me that dumtrump is over his head and so are his courtiers. I like the idea of the Russians weaponizing their intelligence.

quote:
the most telling piece of information may be the most obvious. Donald Trump himself made numerous statements in support of Russia, Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks during the campaign. At the same time, Mr. Trump and his team have gone out of their way to hide contacts with Russians and lied to the public about it. Likewise, Mr. Trump has attacked those people and institutions that could get to the bottom of the affair.... Innocent people don’t tend to behave this way.

 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Breaking news on this bank of the pond:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40820863

Could this be the beginning of the end for Ozymandias?

Or, at least, the end of the beginning?

IJ
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
BBC are reporting as breaking news that Mueller is 'impannelling' a grand jury and issuing subpoenas. This seems like the end of the phoney war, as it were.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I think it is rather the beginning of a very real, and very nasty war. But if there ever was such a thing as a Just War, this would be it.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
This work in progress has been buzzing around my head this afternoon, to the tune of Tomorrow from Annie the Musical.

Grand Jury, Grand Jury
He's impaneled a Grand Jury
Schadenfreude is mine today

You're welcome.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Tangent alert! Robert Armin, I've always known that wonderful saying as a Jewish one.

M.

Sorry, all I was trying to say is that it pre-dates even mousethief!

[ 04. August 2017, 06:33: Message edited by: M. ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
this thread, being composed of tangents, leads us to a greater theme.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Can Trump really believe all the stuff he spouts? And is it more frightening if he does, or if he doesn't?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think it may be more important to consider what other folks believe about Trump's behaviour.

This article made me think. It looks as though, as well as his notes, James Comey created an additional contemporary evidence trail re his discussions and phone calls with POTUS and there will be witnesses to that effect.

I suppose it might be argued that the contemporary recollections (written down or otherwise) of conversations and over-hearings by FBI officals are all "poisoned" by Comey's "misunderstandings and misrepresentations" of his conversations with POTUS. That remains to be seen.

However, coupled with various statements and actions, (including the latest revelations of POTUS's "weighing in" re Trump Jr's misleading statement,) there is growing support for a pattern of obstruction of justice by POTUS himself. Sufficient to convince a grand jury to bring a finding of another unindicted co-conspirator in the White House?

Would the GOP majority in the Senate protect him? Maybe not.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Though he does show signs of wanting to fight things out in the court of public opinion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/03/donald-trump-west-virginia-rally-russia-grand-jury

Which is probably not a welcome development on the whole.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And he *still* can't cope with not winning the popular vote. He's *still* trying to get Hillary on trial.

Someone on NPR pointed out that the loser of the presidential election is usually left alone. Ain't likely to happen.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And he *still* can't cope with not winning the popular vote. He's *still* trying to get Hillary on trial.

My take on that is slightly different. Trump wants popular acclaim. As his popularity dips. he goes back to what he was doing when he felt more popular. He never felt more popular than when "winning" the election. What was he doing then? Oh, yeah, he was constantly urging investigations of Clinton. Therefore, to regain his popularity, he has resumed insisting on investigations of Clinton. It is what makes him popular! It is not so much that he can't cope with not winning the popular vote--he can't cope with not remaining popular.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No, the news of a grand jury is not especially significant. It happens all the time. Of course from the investigatees' point of view it would have been been better if the DoJ immediately decided it was all smoke and no fire. But the grand jury will poke around for months and months and see if it's worth bringing charges. Very often they decide it's not worth while, and until they do there's no point in getting excited. The mills of American justice grind very, very slow. Here's a law professor in the POST explaining all this.

If you remember Peggy Noonan, the Bush speech writer, she has a book out. Chunks of it are here on her blog, a free click. As you would expect, she's scorching. This particular bit was written before the Mooch got the axe; I have to click around and see what she says about that debacle.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O, that's rather depressing. I was hoping that Ozymandias might be hauled up before the bench quite quickly, so that he could get sent to prison equally quickly, and the world could relax a little.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Oh, I think we should probably hunker down for four years of this chaos. But if Trump continues to be as utterly ineffectual as he has been up to now, that may not be so bad. President Pence might be even worse.

Just as long as the joint chiefs don't allow him to start any wars. They could install a mini-golf green in the situation room, or something, you know, distract him.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That's depressing as well (or would be, if I were American). To think of all that time, money, and effort, spent on electing a president with the intelligence (and attention span) of a fruit fly.

Still, point taken. Ozymandias ineffectual is better than Ozymandias starting WW3...

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This should be a free click: What Crooked Donald can do to save himself.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hmm. Start a war, or suffer an attack (on his Sacred Person? Or on the country?).

Neither option is that attractive...

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I suppose there is an upside. His appalling incompetence is preventing the implementation of his appalling policies.

I should think that Kelly and Mattis would move on Article 25 if the Donald tried to play the desperate card of a savage act of aggression. And maybe even the family can see now that he has at the very least to be contained somehow.

Risky times. I've never seen the like in any of the Western democracies. The Brexit incompetencies of the present UK government pale into insignificance by comparison.

[ 05. August 2017, 08:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Hedgehog--

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And he *still* can't cope with not winning the popular vote. He's *still* trying to get Hillary on trial.

My take on that is slightly different. Trump wants popular acclaim. As his popularity dips. he goes back to what he was doing when he felt more popular. He never felt more popular than when "winning" the election. What was he doing then? Oh, yeah, he was constantly urging investigations of Clinton. Therefore, to regain his popularity, he has resumed insisting on investigations of Clinton. It is what makes him popular! It is not so much that he can't cope with not winning the popular vote--he can't cope with not remaining popular.
Yes, he can't cope with not being popular. His dad taught the kids that only winners deserve to be loved. So he always has to be the best, biglier, etc.

But he repeatedly denied that Hillary won the popular vote. I think he kinda sorta moved on from that to another theory. And he's said, IIRC, that H was the one who colluded with the Russians.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Hey 45. You won. Get over it.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
How can he get over it when he can't even do it? He's in a jam many of us meet up with sooner or later: tasked with something he MUST do, but cannot manage.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
He's in it real deep, as we all are when we find ourselves unable to do the sensible thing: smile, admit we don't know what we're doing, and chair a panel of experts.

What a demonic lie, the myth of the strong man is.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He's very nearly the perfect example of toxic masculinity.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He's very nearly the perfect example of toxic masculinity.

He is the very model of a toxic masculinity
Though some say he's a model of a prophet of divinity
A set of Evangelicals that vote "right" in America
And socialistic health care they deride with much hysterica
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He is the very model of a toxic masculinity
Though some say he's a model of a prophet of divinity
A set of Evangelicals that vote "right" in America
And socialistic health care they deride with much hysterica

[Overused]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He's very nearly the perfect example of toxic masculinity.

He is the very model of a toxic masculinity
Though some say he's a model of a prophet of divinity
A set of Evangelicals that vote "right" in America
And socialistic health care they deride with much hysterica

FOr those in ignorance of the great G&S, it starts the same tune as the pirate king tune.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
/pedant alert/

The Modern Major-General's tune.

Another [Overused] for mousethief, though - brilliant, and in true Gilbertian fashion.

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
He starts off with a few lines and the Pirate King complains that it is the same tune as his.
Then it changes and goes to the tune that fits mt's verse.
If you are going to pretend pedantry, get it right
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I stand corrected.

BTW, sentences should be finished off with a .

[Razz]

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
FOr those in ignorance of the great G&S, it starts the same tune as the pirate king tune.

Oooh! My favorite Pirate King!
[Axe murder]

(I was at a party a few years ago where he sang the Pirate King's song.)
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
One down, 2 million nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine to go.

And here come the screams for voter ID. To whom I reply: If she had been required to show proof of citizenship when voting, she would have been stopped from voting illegally. Unfortunately, if everyone is required to show proof of citizenship, thousands of citizens will be also unable to vote. Nose, face, cut.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Poor lady - what a terrible experience for her, and for her family, whatever mistakes she may or may not have made.

But.....it's taken ten years for the case to get this far, it seems. How long is it going to take to deport the other 2,999,999?

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
One down, 2 million nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine to go.

And here come the screams for voter ID. To whom I reply: If she had been required to show proof of citizenship when voting, she would have been stopped from voting illegally. Unfortunately, if everyone is required to show proof of citizenship, thousands of citizens will be also unable to vote. Nose, face, cut.

Yes. Would you rather harm tens of thousands to prevent one person from abusing the system? People who feel in no danger of being harmed ("they'll never stop ME from voting because I'm not like THOSE PEOPLE") may think so.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He's very nearly the perfect example of toxic masculinity.

He is the very model of a toxic masculinity
Though some say he's a model of a prophet of divinity
A set of Evangelicals that vote "right" in America
And socialistic health care they deride with much hysterica

[Overused] [Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He starts off with a few lines and the Pirate King complains that it is the same tune as his.
Then it changes and goes to the tune that fits mt's verse.
If you are going to pretend pedantry, get it right

In the version I performed in, the king's tune is introduced by Samuel, one of the pirates, and nobody complains before the Major-General starts up his own patter song. And I've checked online in the libretto, and a performance by the Wichita Grand Opera.

All of which takes attention from mousethief's brilliant writing - there is no way I would ever have considered trying to parody that song!

[ 06. August 2017, 11:49: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps mousethief is a reincarnation of W. S. Gilbert?

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes. Would you rather harm tens of thousands to prevent one person from abusing the system?

Somebody voting who isn't entitled to vote, or somebody voting twice in an election, is a problem. The thing that the voter id clowns fail to grasp is that someone who is entitled to vote not being able to vote, or someone voting and not having it counted, is exactly the same problem.

Person A voting in two different states in an election is precisely as bad as Person B not having his vote counted because there's an issue with his voter registration from the point of view of the election.

(It's possible that Person A might have committed a crime - electoral fraud - but that doesn't have anything to do with how closely the outcome of the election measures what it should.)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You have to keep in mind the real goal of the exercise, which is not the goal that you read in the words. The real goal is to keep Those People from voting. Black people, poor people, persons of ethnicity, people in cities.
But this cannot be said out loud, since there are an awful lot of those undesirables and they'll kick up a shindy if they notice. And so the business must be cloaked in other more innocuous terms. To sacrifice a legitimate vote or two is well worth while, if you can disenfranchise several hundred voters of color.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Meanwhile, Kim Wrong-Trim is claiming that his missiles can reach anywhere in the US of A:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40760583

The fact that they may not be accurate in reaching their intended target is rather irrelevant, ISTM. Any missile landing on the US mainland is going to cause tremendous damage, wherever it might fall.

Anyone remember the film The Day After, with Jason Robards? 1983 or thereabouts - I think it pre-dated the UK's Threads, but 'twas equally scary.

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I put my hope in Kim's innate cunning. He will rattle the saber hard, but he must know that an actual nuclear strike will be his doom. A second Korean War cannot be to his advantage. And it would decidedly be a triumph for Crooked Don, who would have a perfect distraction from his soon-to-be overwhelming troubles.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
We live in interesting times...

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
We live in interesting times...

Dammit.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
c'mon, our times are only mildly interesting. We are worried about what might be, not the present hell, like the poor Syrians.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I prefer not to play "my pain's bigger than your pain" games.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I do wish, however, that the media would stop predicting the end. This is the same media that predicted that the Fartletter-in-Chief would never get anywhere near the White House.

Wouldn't it be nice if they could get back to reporting the news as it happens?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Yeah, all the "he's out!"/ "this is the end!" stories that fizzle away to nothing make me feel like Charlie Brown when Lucy snatches the football away. I don't need anymore false hopes right now.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I do wish, however, that the media would stop predicting the end. This is the same media that predicted that the Fartletter-in-Chief would never get anywhere near the White House.

Wouldn't it be nice if they could get back to reporting the news as it happens?

They've been saying "This is the end of the Republian Party!" since November of 2008. I'm getting sick of it frankly.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Breaking news in the UK:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40869319

Ozymandias is getting cross with Kim Wrong-Trim. What price Armageddon within the next year or so?

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Yes, waking up to this news made me want to crawl back under the sheets.

I'll confess I'm not sure exactly what the right response would be from one hairstyle-challenged ruler to another, but that doesn't seem wise. Happy to be proved wrong.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Even I, with my creme brulee of a personality, felt like the desert spoon of impending doom had cracked my caramel.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Even I, with my creme brulee of a personality, felt like the desert spoon of impending doom had cracked my caramel.

Isn't the bizarre metaphor thread in Circus? [Razz]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A good (and free) analysis of the situation.

The money quote: "Perhaps the best hope for the world is that Trump, who is easily distracted and has a short attention span, will in this case once more be distracted. That would at least allow the immediate tension to dissipate, though the longer term problem of a nuclear North Korea would remain."
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Return fire.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{Cross-posted with Ian. Didn't realize his link was about this.}

Re N. Korea:

Not only is T ratcheting up his threats, but "North Korea says seriously considering plan to strike Guam" (Yahoo). (Guam is a US territory.)

I haven't checked a map, but Guam might be closer to NK, and easier for NK's missiles and nukes to reach.

We really need to knock T and K's heads together [brick wall] , and lock them up somewhere.

[ 09. August 2017, 03:33: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Lucky Guantanamo Bay is still open then [Snigger]

[ 09. August 2017, 04:33: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I found that T remark about "like the world has never seen" utterly chilling. Presumably aiming to outdo Bush's shock and awe.

Just heard that China has a treaty of mutual defence with North Korea.

OMG.

[ 09. August 2017, 06:14: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They've been saying "This is the end of the Republian Party!" since November of 2008. I'm getting sick of it frankly.

I can understand that: isn't it the 'Republican' Party? I don't think I've heard the other R-word before.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I found that T remark about "like the world has never seen" utterly chilling. Presumably aiming to outdo Bush's shock and awe. [...]

Yes. As we've come to find, he doesn't like being outdone by anyone else. His mind (like his hands, presumably) is so tiny and is so easily hurt that he rather tends to overreact, with little regard for the consequences. - But this has been said dozens and dozens of times before, here and elsewhere. Sigh.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Ok, and here's another one. Of course, some so-called Evangelicals wade in:

quote:
‘God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un,’ evangelical adviser says
(From the Washington Post)

Like certain ayatollahs and assorted daft religious leaders of quite possibly any creed and faith, this guy apparently is plainly nuts. 'God has given Hitler authority to take out the Jews'... I'm sure that was a well-versed Nazi supporter argument, too.

Why do people tend to project perfection and divine calling in those in authority? Isn't it so that they don't have to think and make decisions themselves? Bloody 'ell.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
“A Christian writer asked me, ‘Don’t you want the president to embody the Sermon on the Mount?’ ” he said, referring to Jesus’s famous sermon. “I said absolutely not.”
An interesting quote from Wesley J's linked article.

God, I am sorry my light is hidden under a bushel sometimes. But when people hear Christian leaders speak out can you sometimes see why I want to keep quiet?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Paging Ambrose Bierce and "The Devil's Dictionary" (Alcyone):

quote:
CHRISTIAN, n.
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
The godly multitudes walked to and fro
Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
With pious mien, appropriately sad,
While all the church bells made a solemn din --
A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
With tranquil face, upon that holy show
A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
"God keep you, strange," I exclaimed. "You are
No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
And yet I entertain the hope that you,
Like these good people, are a Christian too."
He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
It made me with a thousand blushes burn
Replied -- his manner with disdain was spiced:
"What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I'm Christ."
G.J.



 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I found that T remark about "like the world has never seen" utterly chilling.

Especially in the week when we should be remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [Frown]

I am afraid.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Is he the first and/or the last Trump?!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They've been saying "This is the end of the Republian Party!" since November of 2008. I'm getting sick of it frankly.

I can understand that: isn't it the 'Republican' Party? I don't think I've heard the other R-word before.
It means "to reinstate Publius", referring to one of the assassins of Julius Caesar, Publius Servilius Casca Longus (whose name means "servile tax collector with a long casca," and I hope I do't have to tell you what casca means).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No, I don't want the president to be Christ. (An entirely hypothetical blue-sky speculation, since it is clearly fantastical at the current moment; you might as well wonder about whether the current incumbent could be a hobbit.)
A president should be wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove. He should play the long game, 3-D chess many moves ahead, a clever politician. He should read widely and pursue contact with the American people; he should attend military funerals and meet Girl Scouts and cadets. And most crucially (as Napoleon advised), he should be lucky. He should have the knack of having things break his, and therefore our, way.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Will the need to distract from grand juries and his own wrong-doing enter into the timing of his his buring down of their house? But maybe if it is a tweeted order, the generals will ignore it like they did re transgender.

I do gravely disagree with "breaking our way". Because it is so 19th century. There is but one human family.

"I don't believe in guarded boarders
and I don't believe in hate.
I don't believe in generals
and their stinking torture states"

Bruce Cockburn's lyric goes on to to "cry for Guatemala" and ask for a rocket launcher to take out the helicopters, which were made in the USA and the soldiers trained in the School of the Americas. All on behalf of the United Fruit Company originally, which is now Chiquita.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This (from the POST) is why we can't have nice things.
The OMG quote: 'Over the past two years, Jeffress said, Trump has been “very measured, very thoughtful in every response.”' [brick wall] [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O well, that's it, then. 'God' is on Ozymandias' side, so everyone else is OK to be fucked up.

I wonder if 'Pastor' Jeffress has a deal with 'God', so that he (Jeffress) and his minions will not suffer the consequences of Ozymandias' fire, fury.....and fall-out?

And I wonder how these 'evangelical Christians' will explain away the deaths of thousands of their own kind, if one of Kim Wrong-Trim's nice shiny new missiles takes out one of their 'churches'?

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

The OMG quote: 'Over the past two years, Jeffress said, Trump has been “very measured, very thoughtful in every response.”'

Is there anyone on earth who can't see what a joke and what a lie this is?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Clearly, there's -one-. No wonder churches are losing members by the dozen.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, but Jeffress' 'church' has (so it is said) an attendance of 3700 people weekly.

Surely they can't all be gullible fools?

Can they?

IJ
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is he the first and/or the last Trump?!

He is more like the alpha and the oh-my-gawd!!!
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, but Jeffress' 'church' has (so it is said) an attendance of 3700 people weekly. Surely they can't all be gullible fools? Can they?

The question answers itself.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A long and detailed (but free!) analysis of the Christian Trumpist. This is allegedly the first of a several part series, so he has a =great= deal to say.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
An interesting note was down the bottom of that article, where it said something like: If Trump falls from grace, the evangelicals will accept that by saying, "God's done with him now."

Hopefully these deluded people and their evil leaders will retreat into 'reject the world' mode soon...
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
If Trump falls from grace, the evangelicals will accept that by saying, "God's done with him now."

The true mark of a mountebank is the ability to explain away everything.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
An interesting note was down the bottom of that article, where it said something like: If Trump falls from grace, the evangelicals will accept that by saying, "God's done with him now."

What a delightful deity they believe in. Very capricious in His bestowing of wonders and once He thinks you've had your time in the sun it's time to bring you down.

Of course, "they" will never fall from grace, no; they are the "chosen".
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Kim is capable of launching a nuke on Guam given the calculation that the US CAN'T nuke back as China is too close to the fallout. The US and S. Korea would have to launch a full on conventional attack AFTER losing 100,000 on Guam on an army of a million losing at least another hundred thousand in combat with another couple of hundred thousand civilian deaths on both sides. And then Kim would use nukes on his own soil.

Kim's a better player than that of course. Far better than Khrushchev.

[ 10. August 2017, 08:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Far, far better. He's going to fire four missiles in to the sea off Guam next week. He wants a treaty. Trump will have to go to Beijing to meet with him and make it look like victory. Easy. China will bask in its own non-radiological glow all the way to the Spratlys.

[ 10. August 2017, 09:53: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hmm. Next week, eh?

I think I will buy that expensive bottle of single malt after all.

[Votive] for Guam, and all who live and work there.

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
They'll be fine. Mr. Trump has to victoriously go to Beijing and sign a peace treaty with Mr. Kim is all.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That would be a Great, Big, Huuuuuge, Victorious Peace Treaty, Biglier Than Any Other, no?

IJ
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I doubt if Trump the Mouth has given much thought to the effect of fallout on China, or South Korea for that matter, any more than he seems to have taken on board the fact that there is a mutual defence treaty between China and North Korea.

Kim and Trump are a pair - neither can be seen to be a Loser.

'I will do such things,-
What they are yet I know not - but they shall br
The terrors of the earth.'
(W. Shakespeare, King Lear, Act II, Scene IV.

Lear was mad too.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
China won't honour that if NK attacks first, especially with a nuke. Which will never happen. Neither will lose, it's win-win all round for this couple of willy wavers.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Let's pray you're right.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
North Korea wouldn't be doing what they're doing except that it helps China. Who should be running the waters and economics in and near China, Korea, Japan and the territories to the south? Isn't this the question China is giving the answer to? Japan's answer was a double nuke no 72 years ago. Does this rhyme?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Let's pray you're right.

I'll pray with gratitude, but not for magic.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It has come to this. I can't find the link, but on NPR this morning a South Korean official was commenting on the situation. Asked about Crooked Don's helpful input, he replied, "Don't pay attention to him, he's a lunatic."

(sigh) You know who I miss, in addition to Obama? I miss Mitt. Those binders full of women, how innocuous! Carrying a dog on the roof of your car, how sweetly naive!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Carrying a dog on the roof of your car, how sweetly naive!

Still not o.k.
[Disappointed]

I am very glad that Trump doesn't have pets. (But maybe if he'd had a dog when he was young he'd be a better person today.)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Or maybe the dog would have eaten him.

[Snigger]

And perhaps if Kim Wrong-Trim's Mum had taken him to a decent hairdresser, and not fed him fatty foods...

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It just the levels of perfidy that I'm contemplating. Nuke North Korea on the one hand, and the dog on the roof on the other. (sigh)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
More measured and thoughtful words from The New Messiah:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40894529

I think it's the rest of us who need to be very, very nervous, too.

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It has come to this. I can't find the link, but on NPR this morning a South Korean official was commenting on the situation. Asked about Crooked Don's helpful input, he replied, "Don't pay attention to him, he's a lunatic."

(sigh) You know who I miss, in addition to Obama? I miss Mitt. Those binders full of women, how innocuous! Carrying a dog on the roof of your car, how sweetly naive!

Oh God, there is a parallel space-time continuum in which it is currently Mitt's second term. If any of you know the co-ordinates do let me know. Right now I feel like Liz Shaw in episode six of Inferno.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Hmm, as I remember the story he left his dog tied to the back bumper bar and drove off. FAKE NEWS. SAD.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Hmm, as I remember the story he left his dog tied to the back bumper bar and drove off. FAKE NEWS. SAD.

Mitt's dog was put in a dog carrier which was strapped to the roof of the car for twelve(!) hours. Then they noticed "a brown liquid was dripping down the back window." So Mr. Compassionate Conservative stopped, hosed off the dog, and put him back on the roof.

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
(sigh) You know who I miss, in addition to Obama? I miss Mitt. Those binders full of women, how innocuous! Carrying a dog on the roof of your car, how sweetly naive!

Yeah, that, and repealing the Affordable Care Act. And likely no Paris Agreement. The Cuba Embargo still in place. Someone very like Neil Gorsuch replacing Scalia on the Supreme Court.

When you drill down to the details, most of what's appalling about Donald Trump is that he's adopted a whole bunch of standard Republican positions. He may be uniquely unsuited for the presidency as a temperamental matter, but if you actually care about what the American government does Trump is a fairly standard Republican with a bit of extra animus towards immigrants.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
One could even posit that a President Romney would have an even better shot at repealing the Affordable Care Act than the current administration since he'd be taking office before the bulk of the law took effect in 2014. The biggest stumbling block to repeal seems to be that people have tried Obamacare and decided that they like it, at least compared to the status quo ante. Romney would not have faced that difficulty.

And no, the fact that he signed a similar law in Massachusetts that passed both houses of the state legislature with overwhelming (i.e. veto-proof) majorities does not mean that Mitt Romney "really" supported an Obamacare-like system. It means he was a political pragmatist who didn't pick unnecessary and doomed fights with the legislature for no good reason.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
An interviewer on Hollywood Boulevard spoke to Americans who support a nuclear attack on North Korea, but can't locate it on a map.

'None of the individuals interviewed could locate North Korea while some of the guesses were so wildly inaccurate as to locate North Korea in Canada, Oman, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Iran, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Vietnam and Pakistan.'

No geography lessons at school then?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
An interviewer on Hollywood Boulevard spoke to Americans who support a nuclear attack on North Korea, but can't locate it on a map.

'None of the individuals interviewed could locate North Korea while some of the guesses were so wildly inaccurate as to locate North Korea in Canada, Oman, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Iran, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Vietnam and Pakistan.'

No geography lessons at school then?

Interesting. They want 'military action' against a place and they don't know where it is ?

So trump's golf course threats could, for all they know, be against a country nearby?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
'None of the individuals interviewed could locate North Korea'

I take your general point, but after a little hesitation, the guy at 1.16 has it right as far as I can see.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
To be fair, I doubt you'd find a country where every citizen could locate NK. And I'm sure plenty of Americans, even those in favour of strikes, could. And, of course, the reporter has an agenda to push and has edited this. How many who identified it were not shown?

I'd be stuffed with the -stans, but I have quite strong views on some of them informed by reports.

That said, I'm definitely on the no-war side. And Canada person is worrying.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
A large minority of Americans can't find America.

"About 11 percent of [3000 18-24 yr olds] young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent." Nat Geo

[ 11. August 2017, 09:11: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re finding NK on a map:

You never know if any if the respondents were just giving joke answers. And at least most of them knew it's not in North America! [Biased]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
To be fair, I doubt you'd find a country where every citizen could locate NK.

Which is fine, but the first question was the key. They advocated war with a country and they didn't have a clue as to its location. Even simple self interest would say that's crazy.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think they all had in mind essentially "a long way from here". Which is correct, even if LA may be one of the first mainland US cities to eventually come within NK strike range.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
It isn't just about being able to pinpoint a geographic location though, is it? If one's country is going to kill a great many people yet again, it seems inhumane to not even know where or who they are.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
It isn't just about being able to pinpoint a geographic location though, is it? If one's country is going to kill a great many people yet again, it seems inhumane to not even know where or who they are.

Indeed. I agree. It doesn't seem, I think it is inhumane.

But I know people who couldn't care less. Honestly. "Bomb the shit out of them," is their retort.

And I strongly doubt the video was hoping to engage in such analysis. I may've reacted too strongly as well, sorry; but videos that set out to tell a group of smug middle-class (white) people that there are "dumb" people out there via supposed comedic effect get on my nerves. Again, I may be misinterpreting but I've seen far too many of these videos, particularly with Trump supporters [not making claims on those in this one], whose sole purpose is to give "the educated" a chuckle at the expense of the "not educated". I realise if you do not laugh you'll cry, but I worry about what it says about us. Though perhaps I should refrain from commenting in the future on these videos.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm afraid I was thinking it was further north, close to Kamchatka. Where it is is very troubling.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
It isn't just about being able to pinpoint a geographic location though, is it? If one's country is going to kill a great many people yet again, it seems inhumane to not even know where or who they are.

When the first Iraq war started 'shock and awe?' I cried all night. The thought of such terrible bombing going on while I slept was too much to bear, I cried for us all [Tear]

We don't improve as a species, do we?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
An interviewer on Hollywood Boulevard spoke to Americans who support a nuclear attack on North Korea, but can't locate it on a map.

'None of the individuals interviewed could locate North Korea while some of the guesses were so wildly inaccurate as to locate North Korea in Canada, Oman, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Iran, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Vietnam and Pakistan.'

A mere modicum of reassurance that no one in that sample thought NK to mean 'North of Kent'

Seem to recall most Brits didn't no where the Falklands were in April 82, or that we'd stuck a Union Jack there centuries earlier.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Hang on, why does it matter that people who want to nuke NK can't find it on a map? Are they the ones directing the bomb, Strangelove-style? All they have to believe is that the people in charge do know where to direct that bomb.

Frankly, I'm ashamed of you all for laughing at the chronically stupid. Now, has anyone seen a napkin? I think I have latte creme in my moustache. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
An interviewer on Hollywood Boulevard spoke to Americans who support a nuclear attack on North Korea, but can't locate it on a map.

'None of the individuals interviewed could locate North Korea while some of the guesses were so wildly inaccurate as to locate North Korea in Canada, Oman, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Iran, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Vietnam and Pakistan.'

A mere modicum of reassurance that no one in that sample thought NK to mean 'North of Kent'

Seem to recall most Brits didn't no where the Falklands were in April 82, or that we'd stuck a Union Jack there centuries earlier.

Know we didn't.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Trump tweets:
quote:
Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!
Hopefully we all find another path.

How serious is this? Is the media hyping it? Or am I right to be afraid?

[ 11. August 2017, 12:02: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
It isn't just about being able to pinpoint a geographic location though, is it? If one's country is going to kill a great many people yet again, it seems inhumane to not even know where or who they are.

It's been said that war is how Americans learn geography.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Trump tweets:
quote:
Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!
Hopefully we all find another path.

How serious is this? Is the media hyping it? Or am I right to be afraid?

What I'm taking comfort from is that every time Trump says something like this (at least so far this week), someone else comes out and does a "playing-it-down-without-overtly-disagreeing-with-it" statement: Rex Tillerson did it on Wednesday; Jim Mattis did it yesterday. I'm kind of hoping Trump's words are just words and that it's what seems from here to be the more sensible heads that are really handling this crisis.

I suspect/hope that North Korea are happy for Trump to mouth off on Twitter, or in off-the-cuff remarks, it makes it look like he's doing the threatening, not them (according to the Guardian, all they've said in response to this is that they're watching "the speech and behaviour of the US", which doesn't sound like Trump's about to tip them over the edge.

But it would be helpful if the media stopped giving such prominence to every vaguely threatening word that comes from Trump's lips - it's hardly helping the situation.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Hang on, why does it matter that people who want to nuke NK can't find it on a map? Are they the ones directing the bomb, Strangelove-style? All they have to believe is that the people in charge do know where to direct that bomb.

Frankly, I'm ashamed of you all for laughing at the chronically stupid. Now, has anyone seen a napkin? I think I have latte creme in my moustache. [Ultra confused]

Yes, they are directing the bombs, in a manner of speaking, by voting in a president who cares only for himself and knows nothing about anything except golf.

We all knew it would come to this stupid, brainless war of words between him and kim.

What next? There's no point in being afraid, fear is useful when it galvanises action. But what action can we take? We may as well just laugh at the idiots and deal with the fallout when/if it happens.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Hang on, why does it matter that people who want to nuke NK can't find it on a map? Are they the ones directing the bomb, Strangelove-style? All they have to believe is that the people in charge do know where to direct that bomb.

Frankly, I'm ashamed of you all for laughing at the chronically stupid. Now, has anyone seen a napkin? I think I have latte creme in my moustache. [Ultra confused]

It is highlighting their ignorance, not their level of intelligence.
If a person has not learned basic geography, what are the odds they understand geopolitics?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
In this particular situation, I'd be more concerned that people do not understand meteorological patterns in conjunction with a risk of anybody's nuclear bomb being set off.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
How serious is this? Is the media hyping it? Or am I right to be afraid?

A (retired) twenty-five year veteran of the U.S. Army officer corps shares what he's looking for before worrying too much:

quote:
It has long been apparent that this president is not conversant with international issues, military issues, and, apparently, economics. But what he does have is power, specifically, the ability to issue launch orders for various forms of military attacks. Disassociated from realities in all three of those areas, it seems quite possible that this commander-in-chief might, in a fit of pique, actually initiate a new war. (It won't be his fault, in his mind of course, despite the fact that I have just demonstrated how this entire crisis is the creation of his own actions.)

So what am I looking for as a siren?

James Mattis.

If Secretary of Defense Mattis resigns, anytime soon (say in the next few weeks), all bets are off. Why does this worry me? Because Mattis would resign, as I think would national security adviser H.R. McMaster, should an order be issued to commit overt military action. If you see that happen, maybe we should all worry. Until then, relax but monitor.

The whole thing isn't that long and is well worth the read. It should be noted that Bateman's assessment of James Mattis comes from personal contact.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Seem to recall most Brits didn't no where the Falklands were in April 82, or that we'd stuck a Union Jack there centuries earlier.

Know we didn't.
I certainly didn't, though in my defence I was only 3 years old at the time.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I didn't initially know where the Falklands were, but it was made very clear quickly. So I did know before any shots were fired.

I suspect that Trump doesn't know or care where Korea is. It is "Not America", which is all he cares about.

He now says they are "Locked and loaded". Proving he still thinks he is playing a computer game.

I am pleased that the message coming out of other parts of government is "Don't listen to the orange pumpkin, we are trying to negotiate."
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
And I didn't know where Guam was until just now.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, it's a long way from the US mainland, and has a long and interesting history.

The Wikipedia article is informative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam

Lovely beaches, but I'm not sure I'd want to be there just now...

IJ
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I suspect that Trump doesn't know or care where Korea is. It is "Not America", which is all he cares about.

He now says they are "Locked and loaded". Proving he still thinks he is playing a computer game.

I am pleased that the message coming out of other parts of government is "Don't listen to the orange pumpkin, we are trying to negotiate."

Trump is being used as a blunt instrument against the NK regime in the same way as Bush Jr. was used against the Sadam regime.
The Barthe Party chose to call his bluff and paid the price. Not quick and not clean, as Iraq and the surrounding region can tell us now, 14 long years later.

Question is, will the Kim regime stand down? Probably not. Will it disarm? Probably not. Will it stop behaving provocatively? Rational people of the world are hoping it will.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
By whom is Trump being used, though? Blunt instrument he may be, but a very dangerous one, liable to rebound on the wielders...

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And I didn't know where Guam was until just now.

A Mystery Worshipper has been there.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I keep wondering how much longer before someone forcibly drags him to a neurologist. I would put large amounts of money on a dementia diagnosis. Seriously, how is this not happening?

I understand the difference between dementia and assholery, and between dementia and being an unlikable president. The problem is, it's clear he's all three. And the dementia isn't going to get any better, and I can't think of a more obvious way for him to exhibit it. Seriously, taking off his clothes in public would be less troubling.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The problem is, it's clear he's all three.

Exactly right - he is all three. Now let's assume that he wasn't a nasty asshole. If he just exhibited whatever signs of dementia you think he has, but wasn't a nasty asshole, would he look significantly worse than Reagan?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The problem is, it's clear he's all three.

Exactly right - he is all three. Now let's assume that he wasn't a nasty asshole. If he just exhibited whatever signs of dementia you think he has, but wasn't a nasty asshole, would he look significantly worse than Reagan?
That is difficult. Reagan had better people around him. If Cheeto weren't an areshole, he'd have less nasty people, but would they be competent.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The problem is, it's clear he's all three.

Exactly right - he is all three. Now let's assume that he wasn't a nasty asshole. If he just exhibited whatever signs of dementia you think he has, but wasn't a nasty asshole, would he look significantly worse than Reagan?
Does it matter? If Reagan was demented (and I understand that he was), he ought to have been retired. The fact that the country survived it doesn't mean it's a pattern to copy.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
By whom is Trump being used, though? Blunt instrument he may be, but a very dangerous one, liable to rebound on the wielders...

IJ

Well, since Russia installed him as president, and since he has private meeting(s)* with Putin and no USA personnel, I'd say it's pretty obvious who's using him. Whether he knows it or not, whether he wants it or not. Trump is a sucker for macho shit and flattery and probably thinks Vlad is his best bud. Wipe out the USA's credibility as a superpower and ally, and they can divvy up the world with China. Trump truly was The Siberian Candidate.


---
*we have no way of knowing how many, and his flunkies take lots of meetings with Russia as well
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Sorry to interpolate my own psyche, but I just had a dream in which I met and talked with a guy wearing a t-shirt identical to my Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy t-shirt. I didn't twig to this in my dream, and I can't remember what was said, but now I realise that the guy was STEVE BANNON.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Sorry to interpolate my own psyche, but I just had a dream in which I met and talked with a guy wearing a t-shirt identical to my Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy t-shirt. I didn't twig to this in my dream, and I can't remember what was said, but now I realise that the guy was STEVE BANNON.

No wonder those dolphins I saw frisking in the waves off Cape Point yesterday were all shouting 'So long, and thanks for all the fish!'
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
A tweet pertinent to earlier conversation on this thread. Trump can tweet but can't figure out Google Earth?

Rogue WH Snr Advisor‏ @RogueSNRadvisor 8h8 hours ago

'Trump had no idea where Venezuela was located prior to a few weeks ago. Gen. Kelly brings an atlas to every meeting now.'
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
T reportedly doesn't use computers, just his cell phone, as of many months ago. Though I've heard since then that he sometimes uses a tablet.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
T as travel agent:

"Trump calls Guam governor, predicts 'tenfold' jump in tourism in light of North Korea's threats" (Yahoo).
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
He's now threatening Venezuela. [Roll Eyes]

WaPo headline: Trump says he does not rule out ‘military option’ to deal with strife in Venezuela.

quote:
“We have troops all over the world in places that are very far away,” Trump told reporters at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club after a meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. “Venezuela is not very far away. . . . We have many options, including a possible military option if necessary.”

Asked whether he was talking about a U.S.-led operation, Trump said: “We don’t talk about it. But the military option is certainly something we could pursue.” He did not elaborate.


 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
Am I over-caffeinated or something?

Anyhow, saw this and it is painful but informative (for me) reading on the history of Guam.

An Open Letter from Guam to America
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
Am I over-caffeinated or something?

Anyhow, saw this and it is painful but informative (for me) reading on the history of Guam.

An Open Letter from Guam to America

[Tear]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I do not like that letter one bit. Its a gutless and stupid letter that could well have been written by an isolationist here in Australia. The Kim Jung whatevers of this world need to be opposed. Usually talking will do the trick, but sometimes more has to be done. It's not good enough to turn your back and say that if you leave that to others, you will be OK and not have to take a risk, or put your hand in your pocket. That'd be like taking a pay-rise hard won by a Union, and not being a member of the Union yourself, striking when you're told and paying your dues. This person wants to be a blackleg, a freeloader.

Guam can be sovereign if it wants, but it still has to contribute, and that's by hosting military bases on its strategically important soil. My understanding is that many people in Guam are quite happy with the present arrangements.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
T as travel agent:

"Trump calls Guam governor, predicts 'tenfold' jump in tourism in light of North Korea's threats" (Yahoo).

Huh? The man is a moron.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Which one? T, or his lickspittle toady, Calvo?

[Projectile]

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well I meant T, but anybody who works for him has to be also, else why would they work for him?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed. I guessed you meant T, but it was the conversation between him and Calvo that made me chunder.

Doubtless T will welcome the increase in the number of tourists visiting the remains of LA, should Mr. Trim succeed in ruining it in due course.

IJ
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
... Guam can be sovereign if it wants, but it still has to contribute, and that's by hosting military bases on its strategically important soil. ...

There's an implication in your post that if a superpower thinks a particular part of the world is strategically important, the occupants are obliged to "host" the superpower's military. Apparently the residents of strategic locations in the Pacific and elsewhere are expected to "contribute" by helping the superpowers to sell more weapons and kill more people. That's a colonial / imperialist attitude: the world is just a big Risk board for wealthy and powerful countries to play on. Small countries are playing pieces to be traded back and forth or wiped out if they don't want to play.

Being sovereign means being sovereign. It means NOT being a client or a vassal or a colony or an outpost. By definition, if Guam were sovereign, the people of Guam would choose how to "contribute". Maybe the people of Guam don't want their "contribution" to be kicking off World War III. Happy or otherwise, better being called isolationist than being used as a human shield.

And remember, the USA has military bases in a lot of places, such as Saudi Arabia. That was one of UBL's major grievances against the Saudi royals and the USA. Colonialism has consequences.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
... Guam can be sovereign if it wants, but it still has to contribute, and that's by hosting military bases on its strategically important soil. ...

If someone else can tell you how you have to "contribute" then you're not sovereign. By definition.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I skimmed the "Open Letter". Yes, there's definitely a tone to it, but it's about what I'd expect from someone in that situation, who doesn't like it.

I followed a link in the article to the author's bio. Background in activism, gov't, publishing, documentary film-making, and academia. Much of it has to do with the US militarization of Guam. This isn't a spur-of-the-moment thing for her.

quote:
Victoria-Lola M. Leon Guerrero is the Managing Editor of University of Guam Press. She teaches Women and Gender Studies and has taught Creative Writing and other writing courses at the University of Guam, Mills College, and Southern High School. She has a Masters of Fine Arts in Creative Writing from Mills College and a Bachelor of Arts in Politics from the University of San Francisco. She was also a Policy Analyst and writer for Speaker Judi Won Pat in the 32nd Guam Legislature. Victoria has published a children's book, short stories, and essays, co-edited an anthology of Chamoru writers, and was the editor of Storyboard: A Journal of Pacific Imagery for three years. Victoria has written several articles and produced two short films critiquing the U.S. militarization of Guam and expressing the need for Chamoru Self-Determination, which are available online. She is the co-chair of the Independence for Guam Task Force and is actively involved in organizing the community to fight for Chamoru self-determination and express their concerns about the U.S. military build-up.
Places that host the US military can suffer for it. Ask Okinawa about the rapes.

[ 13. August 2017, 04:19: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
If you want a better and safer world, you have to be prepared to play your part. That's neither colonialism nor imperialism.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
What if, gasp, you disagree about what makes a better or safer world ? Maybe the people who live in Guam believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament ?

Also, why is Guam part of America, whilst not having full democratic rights ? How is that not-a-colony ?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

Guam has done more than its bit, for a long, long time--and I'm not sure it had much choice in the first place.


Doublethink--

It is one of various US possessions, territories, etc. Different ones have different statuses and rules. American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam...there are more, but that's all I can think of.

My impression is that the US almost always gets more good out of such relationships than the countries on the other end.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
How does the standard of living in Guam compare with that in, say, the Solomon Islands?
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Per capita income, Solomon islands: $2150 (2016)

Per capita income, Guam: $12864 (2010)

From what I've read, most Guamanians would prefer commonwealth status or statehood; independence is the preference of a small minority. In a 1982 referendum it polled under 5%; a professor at the University of Guam says his more recent polling shows support for independence or free association around 6%.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I hear that The Odious Orange Ozymandias is returning to his lair today, presumably to oversee the destruction by fire and fury of North Korea, Venezuela, other countries that are Not America (and whose locations are, to him, unknown), along with, maybe, those wretched pinkos in Virginia who dared to oppose the hatred of the alt-right (or all-wrong, if you prefer).

An interesting week lies ahead, I think.

IJ
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Shipmates, I've come to the conclusion that Trump is president because he represents the true face and condition of the USA, and that the Obama presidency and even that of his predecessor, George Bush, masked the dark reality. His statements and actions as president are less to be deprecated than recognised as an honest expression of the dysfunctional nation he represents.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Thanks, dude. So kind of you to take away all hope. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No. In fact I was gearing up to paint a protest sign (for the counterprotests this weekend) that says this. "We are America", in red and blue on white. (I think on the back side it will say, "Not you.") They are not us, and their odious toupee'd figurehead does not represent us.

This is not a new notion; we've been biting on our imperfections for a long, long time. This poem was probably written sixty years ago. Says it perfectly. We aren't there yet. But we're going there, and we're not going to give up.

A better president than this one said, “We take a step forward sometimes we take two steps back. Sometimes we get two steps forward and take one step back but it’s never a straight line. It’s never easy.”

And this is a POST link and so will cost you a click: The burgeoning resistance movement in deep-red states. In South Dakota, no less, the rubiest of red states, they resent the danger to their health insurance -- who would have thought? The current conditions are not normal, and people recognize that.

[ 15. August 2017, 13:31: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Shipmates, I've come to the conclusion that Trump is president because he represents the true face and condition of the USA, and that the Obama presidency and even that of his predecessor, George Bush, masked the dark reality. His statements and actions as president are less to be deprecated than recognised as an honest expression of the dysfunctional nation he represents.

He's an honest expression of some aspects of the US, obviously. But the whole country? You'll need to back up that claim.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
How significant are the resignations of business chiefs associated with Trump? BBC News reports that a fourth has gone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40933391

And all The New Messiah can do in return is to tweet an insult to Ken Frazier regarding rip-off drug prices (though, for all I know, that might be true!).

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Aaaaaand he's now back to saying that blame for the weekend's violence should be shared by both sides.



[Projectile]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Has anyone quit his religious advisory panel yet?

(not holding my breath)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I can't find the tweet now. But it ran something like, "Why should they? They sold out on Jesus long ago."
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
How significant are the resignations of business chiefs associated with Trump? BBC News reports that a fourth has gone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40933391

Only the symbolism is important, because this group barely ever meets and it's not like Trump takes advice anyway. Far more have stayed than have quit. Any protestations about staying in order to have a positive influence are baloney.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I was heartened somewhat that some did leave...it at least showed some convinction.

But as Ruth said, the flip side is many stayed. Would there be much movement against their companies, or do you think, to the general populace, white supremacists rampaging through streets is not a high priority issue? I mean that sincerely; if people are more concerned with jobs and education and view this as something that happened away from them it may not even make a dent in some people's views. But I hope I'm being pessimistic.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
RuthW, while you bill yourself as "liberal 'peace first' hankie squeezer", your posts, given this and your shot at No Prophet a few days ago are increasingly reading My Country, Right or Left. America is a complex, aspirational thing, and I can understand your frustration - but understand ours. We have to live with a hyper-power which is increasingly unworthy of our trust.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Far more have stayed than have quit. Any protestations about staying in order to have a positive influence are baloney.

The only reasons for staying are hubris, and an insufficiently strong moral reaction to white supremacy.

As many have observed, it's incredible that Trump takes 2 days to "get the facts" before condemning neo-nazis, and about 2 hours to condemn the Merck CEO who quit. Who is African-American.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
...represents the true face and condition of the USA...

And what leads you to that conclusion? I don't see any evidence for determining which of America's politicians are the "true face", or even for deciding that there is a single "true face" rather than many different faces of a pluralistic society.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Would there be much movement against their companies, or do you think, to the general populace, white supremacists rampaging through streets is not a high priority issue?

I think the connection between these companies and the racists is too indirect for many people to be that bothered.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
PG--

[Angel] (or attempting, anyway.)

FWIW: I don't see that Ruth's done anything wrong, or even that she's done anything particularly harsh.

When you say "America is aspirational", I take it you mean that it's an ideal, that people want to believe in it, etc.? I get that, and I've tried to address that during past discussions of this sort of thing. But non-Americans tend to either deny or ignore it. If anything, they focus on the practical problems of maybe having the American colossus tumble over on them. And, usually, they put that ahead of the lived experience of those who actually *live* here. To the point of telling us that their ideas of the US are absolutely, solidly right, and *we* don't know what we're talking about. Even talking *only* about effects on non-Americans. After one long bout of that, I mentioned that we were being ignored, and someone said, "oh, we thought you knew we care". A couple of people apologized.

Some non-Americans have also denied, all along, that there's anything seriously wrong with T, that there were meaningful problems with the election, etc.--to the point of publicly telling me that I could call them to Hell, if they turned out to be wrong.

Plus some non-Americans, on the "Charlottesville" Hell thread, are fighting about The One True Way to be virtuous responders, in person, to a situation like Charlottesville.

I know it can be hard to have dreams, mythologies, and beliefs threatened. Been there. I'm sorry for you and everyone going through that. Many Americans are going through disillusionment, too--but we're also living within the *reality* of this horror. There isn't really anywhere else we can go; and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot we can do that will actually *work*, and not make things worse.

Plus there's supposed to be another such rally here, in SF, in about 10 days. And IIRC Richard Spencer is supposed to speak at Berkeley, and there's a huge fuss about whether that will even happen.

Most American posters don't like any of what's going on in Charlottesville, or DC, or Trump's messed-up mind. We're scared silly, angry, trying to figure out what to do, seeking comfort, self-medicating, trying to block out the whole thing.

We're stumbling through this. As a thought experiment: think of a time in history when chaos and political machinations took a country down a nasty path. Now, plug the American mess into that situation. Think what it would be like for the people involved. Then think about what it's like for Shipmates--people you know--who are involved.

Please be patient, and compassionate.

Thx.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
your posts, given this and your shot at No Prophet a few days ago are increasingly reading My Country, Right or Left.

I don't see anything in the last 7 or 8 pages of this thread that justifies this characterization.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
[Edit to note the cross-posting -- it took me a while to write this. Got distracted by the Dodgers winning. 50 games over .500!]

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
RuthW, while you bill yourself as "liberal 'peace first' hankie squeezer", your posts, given this and your shot at No Prophet a few days ago are increasingly reading My Country, Right or Left. America is a complex, aspirational thing, and I can understand your frustration - but understand ours. We have to live with a hyper-power which is increasingly unworthy of our trust.

Kenwritez called me a "liberal 'peace first' hankie squeezer" a long time ago, and he didn't mean it as a compliment. I promptly adopted it as my tagline. He's been gone quite a while now, but he's still one of my all-time favorite shipmates, and a better tagline hasn't presented itself. I have no idea why a hankie squeezer can't or shouldn't defend the US against some of the many potshots that are taken at it.

My friends and family would laugh their asses off to hear me described as espousing a "my country, right or wrong" point of view. But I find myself defending the US with some frequency on the Ship precisely because there is a fair amount of knee-jerk anti-Americanism here. There always has been. I doubt very much that you understand my feelings about this; you haven't demonstrated that you do.

I'm not frustrated. I'm irritated. This is Purgatory. People need to back up their claims. Unsubstantiated claims that the US is involved in every coup that takes place in the western hemisphere and that Trump represents the US but Obama doesn't are bullshit -- they can't be substantiated. I didn't take a shot at no prophet. He was factually wrong. He just assumed that the US is involved in just about every coup that takes place in the western hemisphere. Why should I let that go past when it isn't true? And I haven't taken a shot at Kwesi either. He made a blanket statement about the entire country, which is by definition pretty much bullshit just by virtue of being a blanket statement.

Anti-Americanism is not only incredibly sloppy thinking, it's rude, and it's mean. Think about what Kwesi said: "Trump is president because he represents the true face and condition of the USA." He said this to me, an individual, and to every other individual American posting on these boards. I cried on November 8, and I had never cried about an election in my life. I have cried more than once since then. My original plan for this past Sunday evening was to listen to a silly sci fi podcast and make tomato sauce. Instead, I was downtown at an anti-hate vigil. But that doesn't matter. The hours and hours I put in last year volunteering on a campaign to get a lefty community organizer elected to city council -- someone who actually gives a shit about the poor -- that doesn't matter. Kwesi still gets to come in here and tell me that Trump represents the true face and condition of my country. And you in turn criticize me when I acknowledged that Trump does represent some aspects of the country and then said that the claim Kwesi made needed to be backed up. He said something extreme and insulting, and your problem is with me? [Roll Eyes]

[ 16. August 2017, 05:49: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As many have observed, it's incredible that Trump takes 2 days to "get the facts" before condemning neo-nazis, and about 2 hours to condemn the Merck CEO who quit. Who is African-American.

Stephen Colbert suggested that perhaps T had to order his spine through Amazon Prime. (Has 2-day delivery.)
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Oh, I didn't get that joke when I read it online. Thank you GK!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
[Smile]

BTW, Scaramucci was on Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" on Monday. Not quite as fiery as I expected, but Stephen did keep pushing him for answers on certain things, and did get some. Video and maybe transcript should be online. The network is CBS.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As many have observed, it's incredible that Trump takes 2 days to "get the facts" before condemning neo-nazis, and about 2 hours to condemn the Merck CEO who quit. Who is African-American.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Stephen Colbert suggested that perhaps T had to order his spine through Amazon Prime. (Has 2-day delivery.)

So it takes a spine to condemn neo-nazis and no spine to condemn a Merck CEO. (Or for that matter the AG, the FBI director, the disabled, women, black lives matter, Mexicans...)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Clearly that was a one-use-only spine, since he then went and took it all back and reverted to the "both sides" rhetoric. From his appointment of Bannon through to now, there is no way not to see Trump as a white supremacist president.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Kwesi, Pangolin Guerre

This website has been torn in the past by pond wars. Hosts and Admin take a dim view of them. Don't start.

Pangolin Guerre

In addition, you got RuthW completely, ridiculously, wrong.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Clearly that was a one-use-only spine, since he then went and took it all back and reverted to the "both sides" rhetoric. From his appointment of Bannon through to now, there is no way not to see Trump as a white supremacist president.

What do you think about these comments by Trump?

“You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name,” Trump said during one spat with a reporter.

“George Washington as a slave owner,” he continued. “So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?”

“Are we going to take down his statue because he was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue?”
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Clearly that was a one-use-only spine, since he then went and took it all back and reverted to the "both sides" rhetoric. From his appointment of Bannon through to now, there is no way not to see Trump as a white supremacist president.

What do you think about these comments by Trump?

“You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name,” Trump said during one spat with a reporter.

“George Washington as a slave owner,” he continued. “So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?”

“Are we going to take down his statue because he was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue?”

They could have been written by Breitbart himself. I've heard this crap (well, read it) on Facebook and other places, spouted by neoNazis. They usually don't stop there, they usually suggest that the lefties will then start burning books and so on.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The problem with dragging Washington into this is the issue isn't just the people represented in the statues being removed, it's the intent and purpose of the statues themselves.

In the cases I'm specifically aware of, the statues weren't erected until the first couple of decades of the 20th century. There's pretty decent evidence that they were erected as representatives of white values that the people who funded these statues felt were under threat. They were supposed to be reminders of a "better" time when whites were in charge. This is also the period when the KKK rose to prominence.

And so whatever the issues are with early founding fathers such as Washington and Jefferson, they were never seen or presented as emblematic of slavery and racial superiority. That's not what monuments commemorating them were ever meant for.

Which is probably all way too subtle for the current President of the United States to grasp. Even if he could understand it, he wouldn't want to.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Even when he's right, he's wrong: he's right for the wrong reason.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I wonder how old the great memorials in DC are. Would they not have been erected at the same time? Possibly for similar reasons?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wonder how old the great memorials in DC are. Would they not have been erected at the same time? Possibly for similar reasons?

Why would anyone in DC be looking to enshrine Confederate values?

And to save you wondering, Wikipedia readily tells me that the Washington Monument was started in 1848. The Jefferson Memorial was 1939.

And I'm frankly not even going to look up the Lincoln Memorial because that's just too absurd.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
A tweet today -

"Dear US History teachers:
Your job is crucial. Please make sure your students know the difference b/w George Washington and Robert E. Lee"
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why would anyone in DC be looking to enshrine Confederate values?

And to save you wondering, Wikipedia readily tells me that the Washington Monument was started in 1848. The Jefferson Memorial was 1939.

Mmm. I don't know the answer, I was just thinking aloud. I apologise for not knowing the detail of how DC got these memorials.

Given that Jefferson seems like an unrepentant racist and slave-owner - at least according to some accounts - I was wondering if these could have been erected as monuments to Dunning-style history in the late 19th century and early 20th century white racist domination of the capitol.

Maybe not, that's why I asked.

In fairness, this appears to be largely how many of the statues in and around parliament square in London were determined.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The whole thing is a red herring. If it was simply a group of people arguing about Lee's statue, I would have a strong opinion of my own, but it wouldn't end up as the news story for days on end.

It is because a group of neo-nazis got together to protest and became violent that it became a story. If it was a bunch of local citizens worried about historical revisionism that would be no big deal.

Turning this from an argument about racism and fascism to an argument about a historical figure is just another way to present it as a disagreement to be balanced about with two sides.

There's nothing to be balanced about here, and it seems hard to conclude anything except we have a racist president.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
It's not a matter of taking down statues of anyone who had racist beliefs, or any other faults, it's a matter of taking down a statue of a man who led a rebellion against the United States.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
From AP on the latest Trump statement;

quote:
Chief of staff John Kelly crossed his arms and stared down at his shoes, barely glancing at the president. Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders looked around the room trying to make eye contact with other senior aides. One young staffer stood with her mouth agape.
Well they need to do more than look a bit askance, they need to resign and isolate this dangerous, dishonest, vain and malicious disgrace of a president unless they want to go down in history as the ones who helped him out. Because containment and influence on the inside is clearly not working.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A tweet today -

"Dear US History teachers:
Your job is crucial. Please make sure your students know the difference b/w George Washington and Robert E. Lee"

The problem is that, in certain ways, especially in their attitudes towards slavery, there isn't a huge difference.

Trump inadvertently stumbled on kind of a woke point (if white people can use that word). The fact that it is silly in his mind that we might ask serious questions about how we feel about our slave owning founders shows how the thread of unquestioned white supremacy is really central in our society.

Jefferson did a whole lot to enshrine ideals of personal liberty into western, and eventually world-wide, culture. He also owned slaves, had sexual relations with his slaves (which seems impossible to be completely innocent), and championed policies towards westward expansion that doomed the Indians who were already living there, and expanded slavery deep into North America. If we settle with "well, he's better because he never rebelled against the United States," we somehow excuse him for attitudes that were central to the founding of the CSA.

I recently visited Philadelphia's new Museum of the American Revolution. They do a good job throughout of highlighting the tension between the words "all men are created equal" and the society that fought for independence. At the time, it was unthinkable that the women, slaves, and Indians who were in the middle of the war might be included in those words. Outside of Liberty Hall, at the cite of the original President's residence, they also have an exhibition about slaves serving the President. It's that kind of tension that we need to be exposing.

Yes, let's by all means take down statues that were built with the expressed purpose of letting black people know that they were still no better than slaves in the eyes of their white neighbors. But that alone won't erase white supremacy, and if we pat ourselves on the back too hard for doing that, we risk burying the thread of white supremacy even deeper.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
RuthW
quote:
Anti-Americanism is not only incredibly sloppy thinking, it's rude, and it's mean. Think about what Kwesi said: "Trump is president because he represents the true face and condition of the USA." He said this to me, an individual, and to every other individual American posting on these boards.Anti-Americanism is not only incredibly sloppy thinking, it's rude, and it's mean. Think about what Kwesi said: "Trump is president because he represents the true face and condition of the USA." He said this to me, an individual, and to every other individual American posting on these boards.
Ruth, I’m surprised that you should construe my remarks as personally directed at yourself and other American posters of a liberal persuasion, rather I see you a part of a not inconsiderable righteous remnant, but a minority, nevertheless. (Incidentally, how can you be certain you speak for all ‘other Americans posting on these boards”?) I’m surprised, too, that you should resort to describing myself and other critics as “anti-American”: a phrase more associated with the Joe McCarthy and the American right. Believe it or not, I’m not a knee-jerk anti-American, and have relatives who have happily and successfully emigrated from Africa seeking a better life in the USA. Perhaps I might be allowed put a little flesh on my original post.


The reason for my pessimism about the condition of the USA is that despite the Warren Court of the 1950s, LBJ’s reforms of the 1960s, and the more recent presidency of Obama, little progress has been made in addressing the underlying racism of American society, of which Trump is an example and beneficiary. It seems remarkable that twenty years after the unpunished beating up of Rodney King by the police in 1991, the then latest manifestation of a phenomenon in evidence since before the founding of the republic, it became necessary to create the lobby group “Black Lives Matter” in response to police impunity regarding the killing and maiming of blacks. That black men are disproportionately incarcerated and are awarded the severest sentences is surely not evidence that African-Americans are genetically more prone to crime than their white counterparts, rather than of the use of the judicial process to put black men in their place. Trump has a point when he asks why statues to Jefferson and Washington should not suffer the same indignity as that of Lee. The enlightened founders of the constitution may have believed in universal human rights and talked of liberty and freedom, but they denied it to black people, who they regarded as less human than they were (racism), and to women (sexism). It is notable that the only coherent thread in the candidacy and presidency of Trump has been his congenital phobia concerning Obama, starting with his attempt to de-legitimise his right to be president (birthing) and continuing with his desire to undo everything he achieved. It is remarkable that 34 per cent continue to support his outrageous presidency, which much include a significantly higher proportion of white voters. Furthermore and importantly, the sentiment that backed him is reflected in a Tea-Partied Republican Party that controls both houses of congress and dominates a slew of state houses and gubernatorial mansions across the nation. Setting aside the capricious character of Trump, what would be different were he to be replaced by Pence or Ryan? Trump, to my mind, articulates a political mind-set that is well-entrenched and dominates the contemporary political firmament. He is not a cuckoo inhabiting a liberal nest. That is why I argue Trump “represents the true face and condition of the USA”. Would that it were not so.

We might continue the discussion with respect to gun control and female emancipation and so on, but those are issues better dealt with by others.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I apologise for not knowing the detail of how DC got these memorials.

[Confused] Seriously, you don't know how the national capital isn't the home of memorials to people who led a rebellion against the government located in the national capital?

Because that's the context we're talking about here. We're talking about statues representing the Confederacy. The States that broke away because they didn't want Washington DC changing their ways.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[Confused] Seriously, you don't know how the national capital isn't the home of memorials to people who led a rebellion against the government located in the national capital?

The difference between the statues is that one lot is from the side won and the other from the side that lost?

The racism implicit in the object itself and the person deplicted has nothing to do with it?

quote:
Because that's the context we're talking about here. We're talking about statues representing the Confederacy. The States that broke away because they didn't want Washington DC changing their ways.
OK, it isn't for me to say what the context is, but it strikes me that this is more than just about who was on which side of the war.

[ 16. August 2017, 14:56: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It's about what those sides represented. It's about why the iconography of the Confederacy was revived.

I've already SAID that. That was basically my starting point. And I continue to find your musing about Washington DC mystifying as a result.

[ 16. August 2017, 15:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I mean, there is a statue of Washington in Trafalgar Square. How do you feel about Londoners taking it down because it represented a figure who led a rebellion against the government located in our national capital?

In and of itself that seems like a strange criteria for determining whether a statue should be taken down or preserved.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I mean, there is a statue of Washington in Trafalgar Square. How do you feel about Londoners taking it down because it represented a figure who led a rebellion against the government located in our national capital?

In and of itself that seems like a strange criteria for determining whether a statue should be taken down or preserved.

As an Australian I don't give a flying fuck whether there's a statue of Washington in Trafalgar Square. But I'm willing to place a bet it wasn't erected until relations between the US and the UK had changed considerably.

And I never said that was the criteria for taking a statue down. Washington DC never HAD statues of these people.

I have to ask... just how much knowledge about the American Civil War do you actually have?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I have to ask... just how much knowledge about the American Civil War do you actually have?

Not much, why?

Are you saying that some statues, despite being of morally compromised individuals, are worth keeping because other people are worse?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Anyway, there are confederate statues in DC. I don't understand what you are getting worked up about.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I'm not RuthW and do not speak for her; she's well-able to do that for herself. But here are some points I wish to respond to:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Ruth, I’m surprised that you should construe my remarks as personally directed at yourself and other American posters of a liberal persuasion, rather I see you a part of a not inconsiderable righteous remnant, but a minority, nevertheless.

Fact: a minority of voters put Trump into office. His opponent won the popular vote -- the majority. Do bear in mind that sexism, alongside of racism, remains a significant problem in this society, and his opponent was a woman. She was a white woman, I grant you.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The reason for my pessimism about the condition of the USA is that despite the Warren Court of the 1950s, LBJ’s reforms of the 1960s, and the more recent presidency of Obama, little progress has been made in addressing the underlying racism of American society, of which Trump is an example and beneficiary. It seems remarkable that twenty years after the unpunished beating up of Rodney King by the police in 1991, the then latest manifestation of a phenomenon in evidence since before the founding of the republic, it became necessary to create the lobby group “Black Lives Matter” in response to police impunity regarding the killing and maiming of blacks. That black men are disproportionately incarcerated and are awarded the severest sentences is surely not evidence that African-Americans are genetically more prone to crime than their white counterparts, rather than of the use of the judicial process to put black men in their place.

While I share your dismay and to some extent your pessimism, I would just point out that a little progress has been made. Not enough. It's painfully slow and appallingly small. It is easy to find and point out the gaping holes in our social "justice" framework, and it is difficult and time-consuming to locate and show the inched-forward examples of real progress. We lose sight of these, though, and we lose our hope and motivation to keep working toward actual justice.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Trump has a point when he asks why statues to Jefferson and Washington should not suffer the same indignity as that of Lee.

No. No, he doesn't. George Washington has not been memorialized as a slaveholder though he was that. He is memorialized as the leader of a successful rebellion against the British government, leading to independence for what was then a colony.

As to the flaws in the original Constitution: in what European nation, contemporary with the founding of this one, was slavery illegal? In what country were women enfranchised and wielding any degree of political authority?

People use and build on such models as they see around them -- for good or evil. If we're going to fault the Founders for "normal" failures of imagination, we might all as well just stay in bed and pull the covers over our heads.

Lee, by contrast, was the leader of a bloody, costly rebellion to ensure the continuation of slavery. He was memorialized as a political sop to states where politics ran on those aggrieved by being "robbed" of their "right" to slaves and white "superiority."

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Trump, to my mind, articulates a political mind-set that is well-entrenched and dominates the contemporary political firmament. He is not a cuckoo inhabiting a liberal nest. That is why I argue Trump “represents the true face and condition of the USA”. Would that it were not so.

I agree that the mind-set is well-entrenched, but it is not a majoritarian view. It seems to dominate our politics because it's turning violent, and violence gets news coverage. What you're seeing is the outrage of a species which feels endangered, and in fact is.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
as a Virginian, this is not a new issue to me (dealing with the fact that many of our heroes had dark sides). I think there IS a legitimate debate with two valid sides to the DISCUSSION of statues, what they stand for, and how to deal with them.

However, the "Unite the Right" folks were not there for discussion. they came armed. they came with racist symbols and racist chants. they were out for a fight. And they attacked PEACEFUL counter protestors. If there was anyone "wielding a club" on the other side, it was certainly not the norm, nor was it the intent of those organizing the counter protest (to the extent it was organized at all). These were people seeing something horrible and stepping out to counter it.

There is no discussion here. there is no "well, on the one hand.. but on the other hand..." here you have open, targeted, unrepentant hatred, and on the other side those who see that and say "no, not in my neighborhood. not in my country. not on my watch".

If I did know of any individual attacking (not defending themselves) the nazi protestors, I can certainly understand it, but I won't condone it. but I have yet to see such and I have no idea where 45 is getting that information (well I do have a pretty good idea, but you know what I mean).

Shameful.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Meanwhile, in the dead of night, Baltimore took down four Confederate statues. The city council passed the resolution to remove them on Monday. The mayor signed the resolution on Tuesday. They were gone that night.

I think the first Confederate statues were first put up in the 1880's shortly after the Reconstruction Era ended and Blacks started to be disenfranchised. The zenith of the placement of Confederate statues was around 1914 when many Southern states were passing Jim Crow Laws. There was the beginning of a slight bump in mid-1950's when the civil rights movement began. The last one that was placed was in 1980, I think.

They need to come down.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
As the Post editorial board points out (could find you a link if there is interest) Trump deliberately blurred the moral line between the removal of statues that were explicitly erected as monuments to white supremacy, and ones that weren’t.

There is also the point that if you take up arms against the nation you are, you know, a traitor. You don't get a statue.

If Li'l Donny were smart (or if his communications team were defter) he would claim that he has helped to air out all these issues and set the country onto a healthier direction. Once all these cheap nasty statues (many erected in the early 20th century specifically as a white supremacy gesture) are gone we will be a better nation. Already he has united the nation in its opinion. A mighty feat!

[ 16. August 2017, 15:49: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The mighty feet were pretty well all that was left of Ozymandias, IIRC...

IJ
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
If there was anyone "wielding a club" on the other side, it was certainly not the norm, nor was it the intent of those organizing the counter protest (to the extent it was organized at all). These were people seeing something horrible and stepping out to counter it.

There is very clear video. Before the shitbag in the Charger was able to shift into reverse, the rear window of the car was smashed with a baseball bat. They came for exactly what they got, and were hoping for such.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
There is very clear video. Before the shitbag in the Charger was able to shift into reverse, the rear window of the car was smashed with a baseball bat. They came for exactly what they got, and were hoping for such.

Wait.. what?

The guy runs into a load of people at high speed, someone breaks a window and he reverses away.

How is that showing that "they came for exactly what they got, and were hoping for such"?

Who is the "they" in this sentence?

And how is breaking a window after someone in a car murdered a pedestrian remotely the same as Nazis coming to a march with machine guns?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
romanlion has spoken, but is best ignored.

[Roll Eyes]

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Don't track the shit on the mosaics.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Trump has a point when he asks why statues to Jefferson and Washington should not suffer the same indignity as that of Lee.

In part, because the purpose of the Confederate statues was to obfuscate. Their purpose is to glorify a direct attempt to keep black people subjugated and they represent the continued oppression of black people.
That was not the purpose of Jefferson and Washington and their slave holding is, to some extent, openly discussed. There are misconception, but little direct attempt to lie.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
However, the "Unite the Right" folks were not there for discussion. they came armed. they came with racist symbols and racist chants. they were out for a fight. And they attacked PEACEFUL counter protestors. If there was anyone "wielding a club" on the other side, it was certainly not the norm, nor was it the intent of those organizing the counter protest (to the extent it was organized at all). These were people seeing something horrible and stepping out to counter it.

A New York Times reporter said on Twitter:
quote:
The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding "antifa" beating white nationalists being led out of the park
On Democracy Now Cornel West commended the antifascists and anarchists who he said were there to fight back and who saved the clergy's lives.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Apologies for the double post, but I owe Kwesi a response.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Ruth, I’m surprised that you should construe my remarks as personally directed at yourself and other American posters of a liberal persuasion,

I didn't take them as aimed at me. My first response was simply to ask you to support your claim. And you didn't aim at me -- you talked about the whole country. Which includes me.

quote:
rather I see you a part of a not inconsiderable righteous remnant, but a minority, nevertheless.
True-blue liberals may be a minority in the US, but anti-Trumpers are a majority.

quote:
(Incidentally, how can you be certain you speak for all ‘other Americans posting on these boards”?)
Not what I said. I said you were speaking to all of us -- and you were.

quote:
I’m surprised, too, that you should resort to describing myself and other critics as “anti-American”: a phrase more associated with the Joe McCarthy and the American right. Believe it or not, I’m not a knee-jerk anti-American, and have relatives who have happily and successfully emigrated from Africa seeking a better life in the USA.
The use of the term "anti-American activities" in the 1950s had a specific connotation that doesn't, or at least shouldn't, come into play in this international context.

quote:
Perhaps I might be allowed put a little flesh on my original post.
Thanks! This is all I asked for in the first place.

quote:
The reason for my pessimism about the condition of the USA is ... [Lots of stuff snipped out here just to keep the post length down and because I don't see anything to dispute]
Trump, to my mind, articulates a political mind-set that is well-entrenched and dominates the contemporary political firmament. He is not a cuckoo inhabiting a liberal nest. That is why I argue Trump “represents the true face and condition of the USA”. Would that it were not so.

I don't dispute any of the factual statements you make. I do dispute the conclusion you have drawn that Trump is the true face of the country. That there are a lot of fucked-up things here is obvious. That institutional racism is still, well, institutional is patently obvious. But assigning one "true face" to over 300 million people is simplistic and reductionary.

There's a lot of depressing shit going on here, and pessimism is not unwarranted. But I'm not pessimistic, partly because I have to get out of bed every morning, and partly because I think the rise of Trump and Trumpism is the one step back we take before we take two steps forward. As Obama and many others say, progress isn't linear.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Meanwhile, it seems Thwimp is sometimes defeated
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from today's Guardian (could find you a link but it's on the Opinion page). This is the kind of statue we have! So there is hope. We must not give in. The arc is long, but it bends towards justice. We shall overcome.
'When James Meredith enrolled as the first black student at the segregated University of Mississippi in 1962, there were riots from a white mob, quelled only by federal troops. After a year of studies, racial harassment and protection by US marshals, Meredith graduated in a peaceful commencement ceremony.
Four decades later, Meredith returned to see his son graduate with the top honors from the business school at Ole Miss. He said he was far more proud of his son than he was of his own time there.
For his part in changing its culture and its history, the university made an important statement about Meredith, the man it had so roundly abused: it installed a statue of him striding towards its entrance.'
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
RuthW
quote:
I do dispute the conclusion you have drawn that Trump is the true face of the country. That there are a lot of fucked-up things here is obvious. That institutional racism is still, well, institutional is patently obvious. But assigning one "true face" to over 300 million people is simplistic and reductionary.

Dear Ruth, thanks for your reply. I'm disinclined to disagree with your considered comments. You are clearly correct that it is simplistic to reduce the face of US politics to a single image, particularly when those 300 million are sharply divided down the middle and the popular vote split in another direction. Part of me wants to see the support for Trump as the last angry hurrah for negativity and reaction. I was, however, anxious that the Trump phenomenon should not be reduced to the eccentricities of a poor man's fascist buffoon, but as the culmination of a process that spawned the descent of the Republicans generally into the dangerously irresponsible rabble they have become. I guess it dates from Nixon's Southern Strategy allied to white ethnic dissatisfaction with civil rights developments in the north: a development which LBJ foresaw would be a consequence of his domestic programme. My worry, which I am seeking to flag, is that the race issue is so deep in America's social DNA that as yet even the symptoms have only been superficially tackled.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Looks like the CEO advisory councils have been dissolved (LA Times). Before any more CEOs could jump ship, perhaps.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I asked this somewhere but can't find where: what about his religious advisors?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I asked this somewhere but can't find where: what about his religious advisors?

Here is a handy blog post listing the names on the religious advisory council, and addressing that very question.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Um, thanks. I think. What an indictment that the CEOs have bailed before any pastors have.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Interesting. Am I right in thinking that none of Supreme Leader's religious advisors are from the Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, or Orthodox churches (amongst many others, I don't doubt)?

[Ultra confused]

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Dunno the answer to taht, Bishops Finger, but I did find this: Trump's faith advisers condemn white supremacists (CNN).
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Um, thanks. I think. What an indictment that the CEOs have bailed before any pastors have.

This quote from the article linked to above says it all: If they bailed, "they might have to get jobs instead of just taking money from the pockets of their faithful and gullible followers."
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks for that link.

Good for them, and well said. Now, will they put their money where their mouth is, as it were, and resign from being amongst Supreme Leader's advisors?

OTOH, they may feel it's better to stay, and to try to influence The New Messiah from within...

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Drat. Cross-posted with Miss Amanda, who has a valid (if somewhat cynical) point! Yes, there may indeed be a credibility issue here, if flocks of sheeple suddenly realise they're being conned.

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Thanks for that link.

Good for them, and well said. Now, will they put their money where their mouth is, as it were, and resign from being amongst Supreme Leader's advisors?

OTOH, they may feel it's better to stay, and to try to influence The New Messiah from within...

IJ

Frank Schaeffer, who was one of us and was before that one of them (a Con-Evo Prot), in his con-evo days said something that still rings true to an unfortunate extent: "Like soup in a bad restaurant, Christian brains are best left unstirred."

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Drat. Cross-posted with Miss Amanda, who has a valid (if somewhat cynical) point! Yes, there may indeed be a credibility issue here, if flocks of sheeple suddenly realise they're being conned.

That presumes an intellectual ability they can't be shown to possess, given that they are the flocks of people in 45's religious advisory board.

[ 16. August 2017, 21:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, point taken. Supposing they (or at least the majority) were to disassociate themselves from His Most Orange Majesty, would that make a difference (i.e. hammer another nail or two into his presidency)?

IJ
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dunno the answer to taht, Bishops Finger, but I did find this: Trump's faith advisers condemn white supremacists (CNN).

From that article,
quote:
"The right remains too passive and the left remains too political when it comes to ethnic divisions in this country.
Is it perhaps possible that "the left" is political about "ethnic divisions in this country" precisely because "the right" isn't doing anything?

When one side is actively courting the support of racists with a series of nudges, winks, and dog whistles, it's a little rich to blame the other side for "being political" when they call that crap out.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Um, thanks. I think. What an indictment that the CEOs have bailed before any pastors have.

Any church that these moral midgets are in, nobody will want to be a part of. If only the entirety of Christianity in this country is not taken down with them.
Over in the POST the dean of the Washington commentators calls for the GOP to step up. Unlike the pastors, who merely have to face their God, the politicians have to be accountable to angry voters in the shorter term.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
There is very clear video. Before the shitbag in the Charger was able to shift into reverse, the rear window of the car was smashed with a baseball bat. They came for exactly what they got, and were hoping for such.

Wait.. what?

The guy runs into a load of people at high speed, someone breaks a window and he reverses away.

How is that showing that "they came for exactly what they got, and were hoping for such"?

Who is the "they" in this sentence?

And how is breaking a window after someone in a car murdered a pedestrian remotely the same as Nazis coming to a march with machine guns?

Gets a little more complicated now that there is video showing the profa hitting his car with sticks or bats or whatever they brought prior to him accelerating into the crowd, dontcha think?

[ 17. August 2017, 01:04: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Yeah. Because speeding into a crowd and killing someone who isn't hitting your car is totally a proportional response in that situation.

[ 17. August 2017, 03:30: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Gets a little more complicated now that there is video showing the profa hitting his car with sticks or bats or whatever they brought prior to him accelerating into the crowd, dontcha think?

There is a break in the windscreen, but I think that's due to it accelerating into the car in front. There was a person on top of the car, they might have broken it.

It happened so fast and he came from so far away that it is pretty unlikely that the crowd was hitting his car before it ran into the crowd and other cars.

I've seen that footage from several different angles and I can't see anyone attacking the car except for the few quick minded people who try to stop it accelerating into the crowd.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Leave it for the trial?

Back on Trump's various "Oops's", I'm beginning to think the Tuesday press conference may be the biggest of them all. He's clearly a man out of control.

I doubt whether it will have much impact on his 30-35% core support, for whom he can do no wrong even when he does wrong. But so far as GOP House Reps and Senators are concerned, let's see how much notice they take of the White House talking points.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
This may be a tangent, but in fairness to Robert E. Lee I recollect the late great Alistair Cooke saying that Lee agonised long over whether to serve the Confederacy or the Federal Government and decided that he should stay loyal to his home state, Virginia. He was, according to Cooke, an honourable man according to his lights - perhaps he could be allowed one statue? He didn't, after all, ask to become a hero to the neo-Nazis.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Re Trump's madness...

My former manager and I were discussing"Is this the end?" today. Surely Pence could not be worse?

What do you say? Would Pence be more beholden to the Party? It is clear he has his own agenda in a number of issues, but would he provide some stability? Would Pence be an improvement?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Anyone else notice that Kim Wrong-Un blinked?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Leave it for the trial?

No, sorry, someone says something that is clearly not backed up by the video then I'm going to refute it.

I'm not saying anything about an individual's guilt - I was clearly talking about what can be seen of the car in the videos ploughing into the crowds.

At a trial the accused will hopefully have proper representation and the prosecution will have to prove beyond doubt that he was in the car and that he did the thing he is charged with.

But the facts of what happened when a car ploughed into the crowd are not open to debate when we have videos showing it from many different angles.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I cross-posted, mr cheesy. Was fiddling about with various responses.

Like you, I've had a look at the videos. I didn't think they supported romanlion's view either. But I'd rather wait for a forensic view.

[ 17. August 2017, 08:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anyone else notice that Kim Wrong-Un blinked?

Yes.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anyone else notice that Kim Wrong-Un blinked?

Sure did. The theory of the mad president cuts both ways.

I wonder what Mattis might do in the Situation Room if the US President gives a mad order? Not a question I ever expected to ask or even think about. But Trump clearly ignored another general yesterday (Chief of Staff Kelly) by ignoring a carefully prepared brief statement and launching on his tirade. I don't think he can be controlled.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I cross-posted, mr cheesy. Was fiddling about with various responses.

Like you, I've had a look at the videos. I didn't think they supported romanlion's view either. But I'd rather wait for a forensic view.

Bully for you. I'd rather counter stupidity that gives credibility to neo-Nazis.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd rather counter stupidity that gives credibility to neo-Nazis.

Before the facts are in?

How is this different to the tactics of fake news?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps The End is not far off:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40952797

Those of us on this side of the pond can only stand bemused at the sight of this train-wreck of a presidency, with sympathy for those who never wanted it in the first place.

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Before the facts are in?

How is this different to the tactics of fake news?

How is it fake news? The window of the car was either broken before it ran over people or it wasn't.

It is fairly clear from the videos that it wasn't. Nothing fake needed.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wonder what Mattis might do in the Situation Room if the US President gives a mad order?

Discussion elsewhere seems to indicate that there's actually some wiggle room.

I've frequently been reminded lately of the line from Cuban missile crisis film Thirteen Days:
quote:
"If the sun comes up tomorrow,it is only because of men of good will. And that's all there is between us and the devil."

 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The window of the car was either broken before it ran over people or it wasn't.

It is fairly clear from the videos that it wasn't

And the devil is in the "fairly".

Without having investigated the detail, I'm reasonably convinced the attacker intended to kill and that it was not anything like a proportionate response to what went before. But if people start not bothering with forensic details that don't wholly fit their narrative of events, I think it ultimately damages their credibility.

And I think fake news is the ultimate extension of that line of thinking.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Those of us on this side of the pond can only stand bemused at the sight of this train-wreck of a presidency.

He's due in Phoenix next week. I wish I could escape to somewhere else, but unfortunately I have commitments. The good news is that the bring me nowhere near his rally venue.

The police have actually asked the public not to bring guns to the rally.

[ 17. August 2017, 11:53: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
mr cheesy

No need to rush to judgment, particularly when there is a judicial process under way. Nothing wrong with an opinion of course.

But assertion and rushing to judgment are exemplified in romanlion's post which started this tangent. I just don't want to follow suit.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Quite so. Perhaps it's best to simply scroll past romanlion's posts...

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Back to the main drag.

BBC article.

Embedded in the article is a video clip entitled "'Amoral' President leaves the world stunned". I hope folks outside the UK can see it. The measured critical comments from William Cohen, a Republican who served as SecDef for President Clinton, and Ron Christie, who worked as a Special Assistant to George W Bush, are well worth listening to. I hope they represent a growing opinion within the GOP about this President. Cohen's observation, that the "real Trump" is the one you see off-script, not speaking from a teleprompter or reading a prepared statement, is particularly on point.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, that's the BBC article I linked to above.

It all makes one wonder just how long Nyarlathotep* (aka The Crawling Chaos) can go on for, before something - or somebody - breaks the Evil Spell under which poor America seems to be laid...

IJ

*for those not familiar with the works of the great American author, H. P. Lovecraft:

http://megamitensei.wikia.com/wiki/Nyarlathotep
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sorry, Bishop's Finger, missed that. It is a very good link.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Not at all, dear boy (we Uklanders are Very Polite).

[Biased]

It's a job to keep up with all the various news reports, but the BBC does seem to be keeping a close eye on USAnia.

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps The End is not far off:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40952797

Those of us on this side of the pond can only stand bemused at the sight of this train-wreck of a presidency, with sympathy for those who never wanted it in the first place.

IJ

The train wreck has over 3 years to run. No problem. 7 even.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anyone else notice that Kim Wrong-Un blinked?

Yes.
Some within the community of North Korea watchers have speculated that Kim's statement contained a (subtextual) offer to negotiate.

quote:
I contend that the North Korean statement issued in response to Donald Trump’s “fire and fury” threat contains an invitation to negotiations. As is often the case, that invitation is not stated as such. Diplomacy guards such invitations so that nobody loses face when they don’t work. Neither Trump nor his people understand this, and they ignore the State Department and are doing their best to gut it. This is the sort of thing that the State Department specializes in.
The analysis is plausible, though not definitive due to the limitations of diplomatic bafflegab. There was a follow up post after North Korea's follow up statement.

In other news, Trump advisor Steve Bannon decided to call up Robert Kuttner at the American Prospect and give an impromptu interview. In it he makes a lot of claims about personnel changes he's going to make and policies he's going to enact, sounding as if he believes he's the president.

Bannon later claimed he didn't think he was giving an interview, he just wanted to call up a reporter for a somewhat leftish American news publication and discuss his newsworthy views. [Roll Eyes] Given that Bannon's background is running news-like organization Breitbart he should have understood that unless you get an agreement in advance from the reporter you're talking to that your discussion is off the record, on background, or not for attribution anything you say is fair game for later reporting.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
He's due in Phoenix next week. I wish I could escape to somewhere else, but unfortunately I have commitments. The good news is that the bring me nowhere near his rally venue.

The police have actually asked the public not to bring guns to the rally.

No guns? But this is Arizona!
[Eek!]

I'm happy to say that I'll be out of the country next week when he comes to town.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The governor has asked him not to come, citing safety concerns.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Beautiful war statues?

Reminds me of the Franco-British wedding I attended where the father of the French bride expressed his confusion over the fact that all the landmarks in his son-in-law's country were named after significant defeats: Trafalgar, Waterloo, etc...

[ 17. August 2017, 15:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The governor has asked him not to come, citing safety concerns.

I know the Mayor of Phoenix has asked him to cancel or delay his visit. I hadn't heard that the Governor had.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I wonder how close the US is to becoming, or at least perceived abroad as becoming, a failed state on 44.1's watch.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I may have confused them, Pidgwidgeon -- I couldn't find the link. However, I doubt if Li'l Donny will listen to him. Perhaps, however, the Secret Service will weigh in.

As to the fracture of the US, you are not alone in worrying about this.

I realize that I'm the cockeyed optimist of the song. It is terrible now, I agree. But it has been worse, and it will be better. As it says in another song, the country's pretty strong.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
What concerns many Arizonans is that Trump will pardon former Sheriff Joe Arpaio while he's here.

[Mad]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
If he were to do so, that would be an outrage I could very firmly get behind [Mad]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Today in the POST's opinion page the headlines are:
-There is a shriveled emptiness where Trump’s soul once resided
-Trump is Sarah Palin but better at it
-Russia’s election meddling backfired — big-time
-Beware: Trump may use the alt-right to turn himself into the center

It has not even taken a year, and journalism is flourishing, the newspapers healthier than ever. This is possibly the only good feature of our situation, but it is a real benefit.
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
quote:
*for those not familiar with the works of the great American author, H. P. Lovecraft
You meant that "great" sarcastically, I hope?

Lovecraft was one of the most bigoted slimeballs that ever crawled across a protesting Earth. The "man" hated everybody who wasn't an old New England Yankee--and he had his doubts about them. Sometime when you're feeling masochistic, check out his descriptions of anyone not in that category. About the kindest adjective he'll use--for French Louisianans, I believe, is "simple."
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other news, Trump advisor Steve Bannon decided to call up Robert Kuttner at the American Prospect and give an impromptu interview. In it he makes a lot of claims about personnel changes he's going to make and policies he's going to enact, sounding as if he believes he's the president.

I found his comments on North Korea (no way we hit them first as long as they can hit Seoul with conventional weapons and kill 10 million people 10 minutes after we hit) to be surprisingly sane for someone in this administration.

Naturally, the hawks are demanding his resignation. As we've discussed before, nuclear deterrence only works if the enemy believes you might actually be crazy enough to order a strike.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The weirdest part of that whole story is the journalist Bannon contacted. If he wanted a sympathetic hearing, why didn't he contact Breitbart, Fox etc?

Maybe he's taken too many drugs. This would explain many things.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The weirdest part of that whole story is the journalist Bannon contacted. If he wanted a sympathetic hearing, why didn't he contact Breitbart, Fox etc?

Maybe he's taken too many drugs. This would explain many things.

I thought exactly this. He looks extremely unwell. I suspect Trump is on something too.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I note that Back Obama's tweets quoting Mandela from "Long Walk to Freedom" have become the most popular in tweet history. Here is the content.

quote:
No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.

 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The weirdest part of that whole story is the journalist Bannon contacted. If he wanted a sympathetic hearing, why didn't he contact Breitbart, Fox etc?

Maybe he's taken too many drugs. This would explain many things.

I thought exactly this. He looks extremely unwell. I suspect Trump is on something too.
I once had a recorded telephonic conversation with a minor celebrity who had a well-known cocaine habit. He was only mildly excitable, made more sense than usual, and at the end of the interview I found out he thought he was talking to his pastor, not a journalist.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@Egeria - yes, I did indeed mention Lovecraft ironically. The man was certainly a racist of the first order, and may well have approved of Charlottesville's Nazis. It's also ironic that he married a Jew, though the marriage was hardly successful or long-lasting...

I do enjoy his Cthulhu Mythos stories, I confess.

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Assassinate Trump tweet

Can understand the frustration. But I can only see Trump and co bemoaning mean, nasty and dangerous "libruls".

[ 18. August 2017, 10:11: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh dear, that would explain the Bannon interview entirely. He thought he was talking to someone else. Damn that speed dial!

Meanwhile, our older cousins are taking the bit between their teeth. This is one of several Jewish commentators I've run across. (a free click) I had not known there was an entire Jewish Republican group; they must be pretty uncomfortable today.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Assassinate Trump tweet

Can understand the frustration. But I can only see Trump and co bemoaning mean, nasty and dangerous "libruls".

We're all frustrated. Senior politicians need to control themselves and not score massive own goals like this. This is such a field-day for the Trump apologists. I understand it, but a senior politician can't afford to let us down like this.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Assassinate Trump tweet

Can understand the frustration. But I can only see Trump and co bemoaning mean, nasty and dangerous "libruls".

We're all frustrated. Senior politicians need to control themselves and not score massive own goals like this. This is such a field-day for the Trump apologists. I understand it, but a senior politician can't afford to let us down like this.
I do not agree at all with what she said.
Unfortunately, what caused it will also get lost in the fallout rhetoric.
quote:
"I am not resigning. What I said was wrong, but I am not going to stop talking about what led to that, which is the frustration and anger that many people across America are feeling right now."
If the voices that call for her resignation have not also called for Trump's, their words are hypocritical rubbish.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Quite so, but part of the frustration must be the feeling that, no matter what happens, Captain Orange simply will not resign.

She still should not have said what she said, though one can't blame her for thinking it.

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I really hope nobody tries to assassinate him. The one thing worse than having him alive in the WH would be having him as a white supremacist martyr figure.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...besides, if you do assassinate him you'll get President Pence...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Assassinate Trump tweet

Can understand the frustration. But I can only see Trump and co bemoaning mean, nasty and dangerous "libruls".

We're all frustrated. Senior politicians need to control themselves and not score massive own goals like this. This is such a field-day for the Trump apologists. I understand it, but a senior politician can't afford to let us down like this.
First off, I'm not sure a two term member of the Missouri state senate counts as a "senior politician" in most people's understanding of the term. Second, is calling for the assassination of political opponents sort of like the Second Amendment; something that only becomes controversial enough to cause problems if someone non-white does it?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Second, is calling for the assassination of political opponents sort of like the Second Amendment; something that only becomes controversial enough to cause problems if someone non-white does it?

Pretty much.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
When the currency of discourse is already violence, there is only one place for it all to end up. The senator is only giving voice to what is already thought by many. Didn't trumpy establish the currency of violence in his election campaign?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
News orgs are reporting that Bannon is out.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Steve Bannon has been shown the door.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/steve-bannon-white-house-chief-strategist/story?id=49295772


sabine
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I'm reading that he will be fired, I'm reading that he will resign, I'm reading that he tendered his resignation last week, but it wasn't going to be announced until last Monday, and then the weekend's violence happened, and they thought they better hold off. I don't know if we will ever get the timeline quite right.

The last scenario is the most interesting, given that it probably means that the phone interview was given by a guy who already had nothing to lose.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This will alas cost you a POST click, but there are many funny image links in this story. DC's beloved Projection Guy comes through again. The Trump hotel in DC is on Pennsylvania Avenue and is the favorite place to stay if you're hoping to toady or grovel to Crooked Don. And can afford $500 a night, of course, but if you can't he doesn't want you to lick his golf shoes anyway.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
@gabrielsherman
Bannon friend says Breitbart ramping up for war against Trump. "It's now a Democrat White House," source says.

In other news, popcorn futures reached an all-time high today.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Aaaaaand he's now back to saying that blame for the weekend's violence should be shared by both sides.

I'm several days behind the fair here, I know, but the whole thing put me in mind of this incident. Scroll down to the paragraph beginning "After some three-quarters of an hour the door opened…"
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I was just reading a short sci-fi story by Ursula Le Guin which had this somehow appropriate line in it:

quote:
When the water came out of the cold-water taps hot one morning, however, even the people who had blamed it all on the Democrats began to feel a more profound unease
(hat-tip to Huia who sent me the book some years ago).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
LeGuin is not only still alive, she just won a Hugo Award, at the World Science Fiction Convention in Helsinki.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Looks like Bannon is out.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Yes, another one gone. The hallways are looking a little vacant around the Trump Whites-Only House.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
At this rate, the Mad Emperor will have no friends, as well as no clothes.

Those who pick up the poisoned chalice of a job in Little Hands' administration really must have a huge and bigly death-wish.

IJ
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
From the NYT article linked by Mr Cheesy:

quote:
“White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day”
From over here it sounds like Kelly is acting
as some kind of (righteous?) establishment figure, doing his best to save the USA from those more contentious presidential appointments - or at least, is the kind of man able to bear the pressure of being the public face of those governmental forces pulling in that direction. Is that a fair impression?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oooh, this is stupendous. You can count on writers to be cunning with text!!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oooh, this is stupendous. You can count on writers to be cunning with text!!

[Killing me]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
@gabrielsherman
Bannon friend says Breitbart ramping up for war against Trump. "It's now a Democrat White House," source says.

In other news, popcorn futures reached an all-time high today.
It would be a heck of a lot more entertaining if it wasn't all about people who are supposed to be running one of the world's biggest countries.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oooh, this is stupendous. You can count on writers to be cunning with text!!

Very nice. Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It would be a heck of a lot more entertaining if it wasn't all about people who are supposed to be running one of the world's biggest countries.

Indeed. I'm past the laughing phase, which perhaps I indulged in far too long. I may have my disagreements with the US but I love the place. And its people. And to have the world's leading and most powerful state, a state we hope will help us in time of need (intelligence or otherwise) running worse than the most disfunctional workplace I have worked at is rather terrifying. Heaven knows how you residents feel.

Surely something has got to give. And surely Pence, can't believe I'm writing this, is looking like a better, if flawed, option.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oooh, this is stupendous. You can count on writers to be cunning with text!!

[Killing me]
There was a fraternity chapter legend about a group of brothers who did a similar thing in a letter from our chapter to the national fraternity. Although being college undergraduates, they went for a more strongly worded version. (Because... Until... Let it be known... Lambda Chi... Since... Henceforth... etc.)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I see from that same link that someone has finally had the good sense to quit Trump's Evangelical Advisory Board.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I see no indication that this has prompted any mass exodus, however. More shame to those who remain.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A lot of them explicitly posted support for Crooked Donald.
I will say though that ECUSA, ACNA and even the Mormons put out statements deploring race hatred. And the churches in Charlottesville organized a prayer service last Saturday. An amazing contrast to what was taking place outside.

[ 19. August 2017, 16:37: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I wonder how long it'll be before one of these 'pastors' announces that God has made a mistake, or changed his mind, or fallen asleep, or gone on a journey, and that Little Hands is actually not His chosen New Messenger....

....well, they seem to claim to speak for God.

IJ
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I hate to say this Bishop's Finger but it reminds me very uncomfortably of the divine right of kings.........
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I see from that same link that someone has finally had the good sense to quit Trump's Evangelical Advisory Board.

Quitting over racism. Not quitting over sexual assault.

If I die and go to heaven and one of these "evangelicals" is sitting on the next cloud does it mean I am not in heaven? #notmyJesus
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No, it means that God's love is unconditional...

....but quitting over racism, rather than over sexual assault, is at least a start. Hopefully, more will see sense, and follow - whatever their motives (which may well, of course, be selfish).

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's not unknown. In 1974 the Mormons announced that God had changed His mind, and black people could go to heaven.
But in this day of the internet, you can always fish up footage of the Reverend saying that Crooked Don is God's ordained representative.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
One of the major differences here is that the Mormons actually have a mechanism in place from very early days of their movement by which God speaks to their group with new revelations binding upon their whole church. Evangelicals have no such.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
NoProphet wrote:

quote:
If I die and go to heaven and one of these "evangelicals" is sitting on the next cloud does it mean I am not in heaven?
Or that God's a universalist.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Which She may very well be...

Re Mormons, what's their official view of the Mad Messiah?

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Can't we have just a little less Jesus is on my advisory council and a little more whippage in the temple? In heaven or on earth. Universalist, unconditional, whatever? Please!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Go for it, mate.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Carl Ichon has now resigned as an unofficial advisor to Trump. Something about a criminal investigation and corruption charges.

The swamp is being drained, but not by the Orange One. Thank God for a free press.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Go for it, mate.

Apropos. Devo. De-evolution. I listened, not like a priest who listens for sin, but as a sinner who should be listening for redemption, but instead as a sinner who wants to sin More. Whip it! But are we moving forward?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was just reading a short sci-fi story by Ursula Le Guin which had this somehow appropriate line in it:

quote:
When the water came out of the cold-water taps hot one morning, however, even the people who had blamed it all on the Democrats began to feel a more profound unease
(hat-tip to Huia who sent me the book some years ago).
What story/book, please? Thx.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
'Schrödinger's Cat' in The Compass Rose.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, Eutychus. [Smile]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You remember that Li'l Donny is holding a rally in Phoenix on Tuesday? Jobs are being created. If you're a person of ethnicity, you can earn $10 an hour holding a pro-Trump sign. They're running an ad. Don't miss your chance to sell your soul for the minimum wage!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I hope some of the soul-sellers redeem themselves by holding their sign(s) upside-down ...

[Two face]

Will this be a really huuuuuge, beautiful rally? The bigliest there's ever been in this millions-of-jobs-creating presidency?

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
When he did this through an actors' agency (so that there would be a cheering audience at his announcement for the presidential campaign), Crooked Don didn't pay the bill for months. The vendor had to file a complaint. So I hope these people know of this, and demand cash in advance. And then who could blame them, if they took a page out of his own book, and used the money to go to the movies?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...who could blame them, if they took a page out of his own book, and used the money to go to the movies?

Or take the signs and put a big red circle with a slash over it.

Darn! I wish I were going to be in town.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I hope some of the soul-sellers redeem themselves by holding their sign(s) upside-down ...

[Two face]

...displaying an American flag upside down is a distress signal...
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You remember that Li'l Donny is holding a rally in Phoenix on Tuesday?

Is it usual for presidents to continue to have rallies? It may be...I'm just looking for any excuse to belittle him.

Of course, I'm taking Monday's celestial display as a sign against Trump and the darkness he has caused to come over the earth.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No, no - his 'religious' advisers will be telling him that the eclipse is just the Sun acknowledging the power of The Lord Of The Multiverse.

Or something.

(@Golden Key - holding the flag upside-down, as a distress signal, might indeed be appropriate!)

IJ
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
And after the eclipse, the ongoing apocalypse? Can't wait to hear Trump speak from Fort Myer on Monday night telling everyone how he intends to increase US military involvement in the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is not usual for presidents to hold campaign-style rallies after the election. They do speeches at specific events (dedicating memorials, christening ships, accepting Nobel prizes, that kind of thing) which may elicit enthusiasm, but not usually events solely dedicated to their own adulation. However, the current incumbent's voracious need for affirmation calls for it.

From the POST, an analysis of how losing the support of the elites must drive him crazy. All the people he wants most to be accepted by are bailing out. And no, these are not the poor people who voted for him, how could you think that?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
"It is not usual..."

[Votive]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Dear Mr. Trump:

Your disbanding of the National Climate Change Advisory Board does not change the truth it has affirmed: human activity has significantly contributed to the warming of this planet.

You can choose to live in ignorance, but it is to the world's detriment.

I hope we can mitigate the damage you are doing to the earth in four years.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is not usual for presidents to hold campaign-style rallies after the election. They do speeches at specific events (dedicating memorials, christening ships, accepting Nobel prizes) . . . .

Well, there's at least one of those that we'll never have to worry about.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O, I don't know - perhaps they'll introduce a special Nobel Prize for Sheer Bloody-Minded Incompetence.

The Great Orange Wen should be in with a chance.

[Roll Eyes]

IJ
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Oh,dear there ought to be a law against it......there was I happily watching the eclipse coverage on CNN thinking how nice it was to see happy smiling people and an absence of Donald Duck when they went over to the White House and guess whom they showed.......Surely this is unconstitutional from CNN? I thought cruel and unusual punishment was forbidden........ [Biased]

[ 21. August 2017, 19:42: Message edited by: Stephen ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A POST business columnist points out that Crooked Don has a Jewish daughter (converted), a Jewish son-in-law, and 3 Jewish grandchildren. And still he had no problem with people yelling "Jews will not replace us" and "Heil Trump."
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
His latest "too bad" comment reminded me of Governor Ritchie of Florida in the West Wing - "Crime .... Boy. I don't know."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A POST business columnist points out that Crooked Don has a Jewish daughter (converted), a Jewish son-in-law, and 3 Jewish grandchildren. And still he had no problem with people yelling "Jews will not replace us" and "Heil Trump."

I'm sure if Trump thinks about this at all (which is uncertain), he thinks it only applies to Jewy Jews with hooked noses and nefarious secret plans, not the nice respectable Jews in his family (and, to a lesser extent, in his administration).

On a similar note, check out An Open Letter to Our Fellow Jews, which specifically calls out Steven Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, Michael D. Cohen, Sheldon Adelson, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@Stephen - BBC News reports that The Lord Of The Western World looked directly at the Sun. Not a sensible thing to do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-41003929/solar-eclipse-2017-donald-trump-looks-directly-at-the-sun

IJ
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
His latest "too bad" comment reminded me of Governor Ritchie of Florida in the West Wing - "Crime .... Boy. I don't know."

I knew he reminded me of someone. They are not dissimilar in appearance, but in comparison to Trump, Ritchie was an intellectual titan and an orator of Periclean fluency.

Of course in a real election Bartlet would have been destroyed by Breitbart and Faux News, and Ritchie would have won 49 states. "Crooked Jed - he lied about MS, What else is he covering up?"

[ 21. August 2017, 20:24: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
@Stephen - BBC News reports that The Lord Of The Western World looked directly at the Sun. Not a sensible thing to do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-41003929/solar-eclipse-2017-donald-trump-looks-directly-at-the-sun

IJ

I must admit that when he came in I decided it was time for dinner. I really had no idea why I decided that

Silly thing to do but also sets a bad example. In fairness to CNN they did bring out the importance of eclipse glasses
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A good analysis of why this last Trumpian outrage was unforgivable, when groping pussy/dissing war heroes/maligning immigrants, etc. etc. etc. could be overlooked.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The LOTWW really doesn't set much of a good example anywhere, anytime...

Maybe when you saw him on TV, it reminded you subconsciously of the need for food (oranges, pumpkins, that sort of thing).

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Cross-posted with Brenda, but thanks for that interesting and thought-provoking link.

I'm reminded of one of Lord Dunsany's short stories, where, after an act of supreme blasphemy, the Gods declare that not only will the blaspheming King be destroyed, but that he will never have existed at all.

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
How's the campaign planning for the election next year going?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
@Stephen - BBC News reports that The Lord Of The Western World looked directly at the Sun. Not a sensible thing to do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-41003929/solar-eclipse-2017-donald-trump-looks-directly-at-the-sun

IJ

He's already blind. Amazing.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is not usual for presidents to hold campaign-style rallies after the election. They do speeches at specific events (dedicating memorials, christening ships, accepting Nobel prizes, that kind of thing) which may elicit enthusiasm, but not usually events solely dedicated to their own adulation. However, the current incumbent's voracious need for affirmation calls for it.

IIRC, he started working on his 2020 campaign soon after his inauguration--even filed some paperwork, I think.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
@Stephen - BBC News reports that The Lord Of The Western World looked directly at the Sun. Not a sensible thing to do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-41003929/solar-eclipse-2017-donald-trump-looks-directly-at-the-sun

Presidency aside, T really, really needs a caregiver. The Secret Service should've tackled T to the ground, for his own good.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How's the campaign planning for the election next year going?

Kind of early to tell, but by at least one measure, the Dems are off to a good start.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Trump really has said that Americans are being sent to die in Afghanistan to "honor those American soldiers who had died there since 2001".

It's hard to imagine more of a cartoon version of the myth of redemptive violence: a bunch of brave people have died so we need to send a bunch more to risk their lives and die to honour their memory.

Where is this going to end? It feels like the Trump WH is saying "the British failed, the Russians failed, the Obama Surge failed - but by golly, I'm a winner so I'm going keep repeating the same mistakes until it works for me."
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Time to dig out the copies of Team America World Police again...

1, 2, 3, 4, "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH..." [Disappointed] [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
And as Baroness Manningham-Buller, former MI5 head, has said, our wars in Afghanistan, like those in Iraq, have increased the terrorist threat. Yet our leaders keep telling us we need to go in to keep us safe [no, or little, mention of the Afghans or Iraqis...]

Though I think Clinton would've done the same thing. Not that that makes it right.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Where is this going to end? It feels like the Trump WH is saying "the British failed, the Russians failed, the Obama Surge failed - but by golly, I'm a winner so I'm going keep repeating the same mistakes until it works for me."

Um, isn't that the same thing that all the outside parties (US, UK, etc.) have been thinking, saying, and acting on for more than 100 yrs.?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Um, isn't that the same thing that all the outside parties (US, UK, etc.) have been thinking, saying, and acting on for more than 100 yrs.?

I'm not sure anyone has been as stark as to say that they're risking soldiers lives because they need to honor the dead.

But yes, the pattern is that armies go into Afghanistan and get worn down and leave. Only the really stupid think it is going to be different this time.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
What chilled me in the depth of the night was his remark about altering the rules of engagement, because until now they have been preventing the troops from doing things they needed to. I had the impression that these things might include things that most of us would regard as wrong. Perhaps things that the troops have already done and been held to account for in the past. But I wasn't very awake at the time.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Perhaps things that the troops have already done and been held to account for in the past. But I wasn't very awake at the time.

I could be wrong, but I thought he was saying something about Pakistan. But then he also said something about Indian army involvement, possibly indicating a profound lack of knowledge about the region.

I guess he just thought he was laying down a "you are either with us or against us" line in the sand. Not sure how helpful that is really.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I've seen someone else refer to it as getting rid of the "norms that hamper" the generals. And I now recall associating it with, not only war crimes, but also small scale nuclear weapons.

I once taught a boy, briefly, while his parents, doctors, were in the local hospital for extending their training, and had an invitation to visit them at home in Pakistan. I often wonder what has happened to Sohrab.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How's the campaign planning for the election next year going?

Kind of early to tell, but by at least one measure, the Dems are off to a good start.
Positive stuff, thanks Ruth.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The Great Leader is certainly fulfilling his promise to create jobs - just think of all the extra military personnel he'll need to fight his wars in Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, the Mexican border (cuz those Bad Hombres will try to break down his Beautifullest Wall In The World) etc. etc. Then there's the actual manufacture of the bombs, tanks, missiles etc. (or are they already prepared, and in stock?).

[Paranoid]

Can nothing or nobody stop this Rake's Progress?

IJ
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Trump really has said that Americans are being sent to die in Afghanistan to "honor those American soldiers who had died there since 2001".

It's hard to imagine more of a cartoon version of the myth of redemptive violence: a bunch of brave people have died so we need to send a bunch more to risk their lives and die to honour their memory.

Where is this going to end? It feels like the Trump WH is saying "the British failed, the Russians failed, the Obama Surge failed - but by golly, I'm a winner so I'm going keep repeating the same mistakes until it works for me."

It's the sunk cost fallacy, isn't it? Many gamblers use it - I've already lost ten grand, so I'd better keep going, to justify that loss. It's awesome to see it used as part of international politics.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Quite so - but this is going to cost more human lives, as well as more $$$. Still, The Son Of Desolation is out to kill terrorists (who are brown people, so don't really matter), and that's what will Make America Great Again.

Or not.

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The Russian war in Afghanistan was a major factor in the fall of the USSR. American funding and training of what is now Al Qaeda and Taliban (Mujahadeen) helped a lot.

If I was Russia, China maybe Iran I'd spend my money sending guns and missiles etc to some of the nice people of the people America now fights. A main feature to followup the warmup act of proxy war in Yemen. This war will outlive all of us and bleed the USA worse than Vietnam. And trumpy will use it to keep power and influence your elections. Torture, atrocities, praying evangelical advisors, more domestic disruption. What a time to be alive!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But yes, the pattern is that armies go into Afghanistan and get worn down and leave. Only the really stupid think it is going to be different this time.

But that usually seems to be part of the package, AIUI--like Russia going back to Afghanistan, or the US gov't not learning from coups they instigated that didn't work out well.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And here's T's Arizona trip today:

"Trump blames media for condemnation of comments on Virginia" (AP, via Yahoo).

Speakers included Ben Carson, a niece of Dr. King, and Franklin Graham.

I think Franklin Graham needs to get a new hobby. Maybe we can chip in and get him a hula hoop? Maybe even some for T and the White House staff?
[Cool]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
The Beeb is reporting, among other things:

Mr Trump concluded: "If we have to close down government, we are building that wall."
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Anyone else a little worried that T is pushing for war, just to get the country united behind him, praising his name?
[Paranoid]

If he wants us all to chant his name, he might want to review what was changed at LBJ: "LBJ! LBJ! How many boys did you kill today?"
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Re: intervention in Afghanistan, I once said in a seminar (and did aver that I might be pilfering the line), "They may lose, but we will never beat them."
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
WaPo article on Democrats' internal debates

I googled Beltway voices but am none the wiser as to their makeup...does it mean those in Washington?

And would you agree with:

quote:
Already Beltway voices are fretting about division, about Democrats shooting at one another, about the need for unity in order to win in 2018. But a fierce debate is unavoidable.
?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

The Beltway is a road that runs around DC. So the federal gov't is within it. And people talk about "inside-the-Beltway syndrome", meaning the gov't folks don't see/think beyond their own little world. That makes a big difference in what they do.

"Beltway voices" presumably means they're just talking to each other.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks Golden Key!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mr cheesy--

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I could be wrong, but I thought he was saying something about Pakistan.

He did. There are ongoing frustrations with Pakistan. AIUI, they've permitted/enabled various terrorist things. And that's where bin Laden was hiding out, in a walled, residential compound. Evidently, some folks thought that a) Pakistan must have known he was there; and b) they should've told the US immediately. (Though why that was assumed when he was in a common type of closed compound, was very ill, and probably stayed inside the compound...)

IIRC, US forces went after him without Pakistan's permission, because of that. And I think maybe the US gave Pakistan various kinds of support, and felt betrayed by all the above.

[ 23. August 2017, 10:52: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Great. Trump alienates Pakistan, it goes Islamist and we have an absolutely guaranteed nuclear-armed Islamist state.

Thanks Don. See you in the Promised Land.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Trump on sending more troops into Afghanistan. He was reported as saying something like (forgive me, I can't remember the exact words), "My initial instinct was to get our troops out. And usually I follow my instincts. But I'm in the White House now, and things look different from here."

Now, I'm no fan of Trump, and wish he was saying this about a different issue. However, that final sentence sounded sensible to me, maybe even a sign that he is beginning to grow up. Or am I hopelessly naïve?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Robert -- he may have believed it at the moment he said it, but -- based on his record -- you'd be extremely foolish to count on him following through.

We in Canada (and Mexico) are currently watching him torpedo trade talks, where he clearly has not been learning anything since becoming president. On the other hand, we're by and large now reasonably sure that he won't be able to do anything at all, so NAFTA is probably safe. Just as well, since its estimated that upwards of 20 million US jobs would disappear if he were to succeed in pulling. That would work well, I'm thinking, with his base.

John
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

Now, I'm no fan of Trump, and wish he was saying this about a different issue. However, that final sentence sounded sensible to me, maybe even a sign that he is beginning to grow up. Or am I hopelessly naïve?

I suspect you are putting too much weight on this statement; it sounds like you are assuming from this that he is capable of a rational course of action after being presented with the facts, this is not necessarily the case.

Apart from which, staying in Afghanistan seems to be a rather bad idea anyway.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Grrrrr.

"Citing Trump, evangelical agency that resettles refugees to lay off 140 staffers, close five locations" (Wash. Post).
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Great. Trump alienates Pakistan, it goes Islamist and we have an absolutely guaranteed nuclear-armed Islamist state.

Thanks Don. See you in the Promised Land.

I reckon, given its history, the army will act like the Egyptian Army did if it looks like the islamists are taking over. Islamists are bad for business, and the Pakistani elite love a bit of business.

Plus, my impression of American diplomacy at the moment is that Trump says something stupid and the entire State and Defence Departments start buying their foreign counterparts drinks. The relationship is multi-layered, thank God.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This from the Guardian makes for depressing reading, many interviews with Trump supporters. So many of them insist he's working hard -- I guess golf counts ans work.

To cleanse the palate the ever acerbic Charles Pierce denounces these same people.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
He tells it like a normal person, not someone raised to be politically correct 100% of the time.
Sounds like what people say about one of our right-wing nut-job politicians.

quote:
My wife is much younger than me and pays $1,555 a month for Obamacare, about 20% of our income.
This is ridiculous. But no excuse for Trump-voting. But I feel for that couple ACA-wise.


I'm off a walk to try and forget their arguments...depressing as Brenda wrote. "Trump is absolutely not a racist" repeated and repeated.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Quoting somebody:
quote:
My wife is much younger than me and pays $1,555 a month for Obamacare, about 20% of our income.

If that's 20% of their gross income they make $93,000. If it's their net income and we guess income tax and FICA at 35%, they make $145,000. How do you have a job making that kind of money and not have health insurance?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
where does that sit on the wealth scale in the States Mousethief? I'm assuming that's household income.

N.B. I have no idea whether that's relevant to the ACA debate [Smile]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
where does that sit on the wealth scale in the States Mousethief? I'm assuming that's household income.

N.B. I have no idea whether that's relevant to the ACA debate [Smile]

How much that will buy depends on where you live, but it's a hell of a lot more than minimum wage. The median household income is $51,000. The national minimum wage, multiplied by 40 hours per week, is about $15,000.

[ 24. August 2017, 03:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mt--

Maybe some kind of contract worker? Or freelance? Either way, wouldn't technically be anyone's employee.

I wonder if that stated premium is for both of them together? And maybe kids?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
There's always the possibility that he's either incompetent at math or not bothering to do it. Or just making up figures off the top of his head.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
[QUOTE]
I reckon, given its history, the army will act like the Egyptian Army did if it looks like the islamists are taking over. Islamists are bad for business, and the Pakistani elite love a bit of business.


I have to disagree with that. The chief contrast between the Egyptian and Pakistani cases is that the Egyptian military is resolutely opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood, whereas the Pakistani military, and especially the Inter-Services Intelligence, are riddled with sympathisers of various Islamist groups, if not being surreptitiously Islamist themselves. Pakistan has regional security issues (which have no analogy in the Egyptian case) in which Islamist organisations or lone wolves could prove to be very useful.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I think the scariest person in that article is the very last one--19 yr. old man; half African-American and half Japanese; he thinks T is pro-diversity, that the Confederate flag isn't racist, and that "Antifa is the KKK, just without the history".

[Paranoid] [Help]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Or just making up figures off the top of his head.

This is my guess.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
[QUOTE]
I reckon, given its history, the army will act like the Egyptian Army did if it looks like the islamists are taking over. Islamists are bad for business, and the Pakistani elite love a bit of business.


I have to disagree with that. The chief contrast between the Egyptian and Pakistani cases is that the Egyptian military is resolutely opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood, whereas the Pakistani military, and especially the Inter-Services Intelligence, are riddled with sympathisers of various Islamist groups, if not being surreptitiously Islamist themselves. Pakistan has regional security issues (which have no analogy in the Egyptian case) in which Islamist organisations or lone wolves could prove to be very useful.
I take your point, viz. the residence of our favourite terrorist in the middle of an army town for some years. Certainly there are people in the Pakistani army who are sympathetic to Islamists, and more who are happy to receive complimentary cash from them. But I think when push comes to shove, an army with a long history of taking over when its interests are threatened will choose to take over when its interests are threatened.

I don't think you're saying that Egypt doesn't have security issues with Islamists, huh. I guess its difficulty protecting Copts and tourists isn't analagous to Pakistan, but the Sinai was a bit of a hot-spot last time I looked.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It is quite interesting looking at the US gives in military aid to Pakistan and Egypt; $280 m and $1.3b respectively (in 2014).
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks for the responses to the quote I posted and the various bits of information. I was just rather shocked at that wage you could spend 20% on a health plan. I should've been more sceptical.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think the scariest person in that article is the very last one--19 yr. old man; half African-American and half Japanese; he thinks T is pro-diversity, that the Confederate flag isn't racist, and that "Antifa is the KKK, just without the history".

[Paranoid] [Help]

Indeed. But what is the solution here? How can someone with such views have those views, let alone come to understand the truth? Reading those profiles I was struck with how blind some can be if it does not fit with their narrative. I know that is well attested to, but this is on a whole new scale to me.

[ 24. August 2017, 07:20: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
How can someone with such views have those views, let alone come to understand the truth? Reading those profiles I was struck with how blind some can be if it does not fit with their narrative. I know that is well attested to, but this is on a whole new scale to me.

Welcome to 'Murka 2017.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Not meaning to take the crown from you, but I am sure we have similar people. As does every country. They're usually smart enough to realise vocalising such thoughts is foolish, though. No more! Every opinion is valid. One loony senator here wants to make sure our public broadcaster gives equal time to anti-vaxers. All opinions equal!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Wow! The news update crawling along the bottom of my TV's screen said that Valerie Plame, former CIA field agent who was outed as such and lost her career, is trying to buy Twitter--so she can close T's account!

I know there are issues of individual rights, but I hope she can do it.
[Cool] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Don't hold your breath; if it happens I'll be very surprised. Also, if one service throws you off or locks you out, you can go to another. That's what the various neo-Nazi groups are doing, as they lose their web hosts and online-payment providers. It would possibly not do for you and me, with our fourteen Twitter followers, to leave Twitter and go to some third tier provider. But the President of the United States can be pretty well guaranteed to attract a load of followers to the new service, whatever it is, and thus launch it like a rocket. And can we imagine Li'l Donny, thrown off of Twitter, just bowing his head and deciding to get away a little from online controversies and instead devote his attention to good works? Oh please.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I have been in a real depression since November. I had a suspicion that Tangerine Tyrant woukd win the election -- just based on my observations of fellow citizens here in flyover country -- but the election results still hit hard, especially because of the Russian meddling and the gaming of the Electoral College.

Apart from the general fear that we're well on our way to a fascist dictatorship...I think what I resent most of all is the anxiety and, yes, hatred that this whole shitshow has elicited in me. I can't go for a country drive to admire the wildlife without wondering ehen the Administration's gutting of environmental regulations is going to kill everything off. When I take MOOCs online -- my hobby -- I wonder when the Internet will become inaccessible, or censored. I can't watch television news. I am afraid for our grandkids, especially because They're female in an increasingly misogynist societym. I find myself plotting exit strategies over the border if everything turns to complete shit here, and wondering if any other country would even consider letting in two old ladies in less than wonderful health. I am always angry and anxious. And then I get angry because I know that this is the fascist m.o., and I'm falling for it, like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, over and over again.I confess that I don't know how to process all this sadness and anger and fear.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
[Votive] [Votive]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Quoting somebody:
quote:
My wife is much younger than me and pays $1,555 a month for Obamacare, about 20% of our income.

If that's 20% of their gross income they make $93,000. If it's their net income and we guess income tax and FICA at 35%, they make $145,000. How do you have a job making that kind of money and not have health insurance?
The somebody says "our income" and not "her income". From the article, he's a retired vet and auto worker - maybe he gets $40K or so when you add up his pension and social security, which would give his wife a $50K or so job. Or maybe she's self-employed, or something.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have been in a real depression since November. I had a suspicion that Tangerine Tyrant woukd win the election -- just based on my observations of fellow citizens here in flyover country -- but the election results still hit hard, especially because of the Russian meddling and the gaming of the Electoral College.

I find activism consoling. To -do- something is better than just suffering. Even if you can't march, or knit pussyhats, or link arms in demonstrations against neo-Nazis, or if you haven't the income to join the ACLU or Planned Parenthood or donate to candidates, you can phone or write or even visit Congresspersons.
And there is the point that silence is assumed to be consent.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have been in a real depression since November.

Same here. Some days I can barely get out of bed.

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I had a suspicion that Tangerine Tyrant woukd win the election -- just based on my observations of fellow citizens here in flyover country -- but the election results still hit hard, especially because of the Russian meddling and the gaming of the Electoral College.

Same here in the Northeast, based on the volume of Trump signage beyond the limits of the small Dem city I live in.

And I so wish the at the NYT or WaPo would round up the Electors and interrogate them. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??!!

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Apart from the general fear that we're well on our way to a fascist dictatorship...I think what I resent most of all is the anxiety and, yes, hatred that this whole shitshow has elicited in me. I can't go for a country drive to admire the wildlife without wondering ehen the Administration's gutting of environmental regulations is going to kill everything off. When I take MOOCs online -- my hobby -- I wonder when the Internet will become inaccessible, or censored. I can't watch television news. I am afraid for our grandkids, especially because They're female in an increasingly misogynist societym. I find myself plotting exit strategies over the border if everything turns to complete shit here, and wondering if any other country would even consider letting in two old ladies in less than wonderful health. I am always angry and anxious. And then I get angry because I know that this is the fascist m.o., and I'm falling for it, like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, over and over again.I confess that I don't know how to process all this sadness and anger and fear.

[Waterworks]
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
[QUOTE]
I reckon, given its history, the army will act like the Egyptian Army did if it looks like the islamists are taking over. Islamists are bad for business, and the Pakistani elite love a bit of business.


I have to disagree with that. The chief contrast between the Egyptian and Pakistani cases is that the Egyptian military is resolutely opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood, whereas the Pakistani military, and especially the Inter-Services Intelligence, are riddled with sympathisers of various Islamist groups, if not being surreptitiously Islamist themselves. Pakistan has regional security issues (which have no analogy in the Egyptian case) in which Islamist organisations or lone wolves could prove to be very useful.
I take your point, viz. the residence of our favourite terrorist in the middle of an army town for some years. Certainly there are people in the Pakistani army who are sympathetic to Islamists, and more who are happy to receive complimentary cash from them. But I think when push comes to shove, an army with a long history of taking over when its interests are threatened will choose to take over when its interests are threatened.

I don't think you're saying that Egypt doesn't have security issues with Islamists, huh. I guess its difficulty protecting Copts and tourists isn't analagous to Pakistan, but the Sinai was a bit of a hot-spot last time I looked.

My laptop just ate my response. Fucking technology. So this is a truncation, because I'm too pissed off to attempt reproducing the response verbatim.

Ok.... No, I am not saying that Egypt doesn't have a problem with Islamists, as I acknowledged re: the Brotherhood. The difference is that Pakistan has regional considerations which have no analogy in the Egyptian case. Pakistan has to contend with India, and an increasingly complicated relationship with China. Yes, nice to have the Chinese upgrade existing and build new infrastructure, as it also helps to encircle India; but what happens when China further cracks down on its Uighur population? How will Pakistan, or Islamists within Pakistan react?

What you write about the Pakistani army being happy to do 'business as usual', that would be true - up until the 1990s. Since then, elements of the younger cohort within the army have been 'desecularised', and I think that it would be prudent to cease viewing the Pakistani military as being as monolithic as it once was. Its complexion is changing, and however correct you are about its history (and I agree), its past cannot be safely extrapolated into the future, at least not without liberal use of the subjunctive mood as an escape hatch.

Egypt has no contiguous regional rivals. The Muslim Brotherhood, et al., are a problem, but are territorially confined to the Sinai. Libya is a problem only insofar as it can serve as a haven for Islamists amidst the chaos. Sudan is a consideration only for the same reason. They aren't rivals, only problems. Insofar as Saudi Arabia is concerned, they, too, are enemies of the Brotherhood, so whatever differences between them and Egypt, they are small and irrelevant.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The somebody says "our income" and not "her income". From the article, he's a retired vet and auto worker - maybe he gets $40K or so when you add up his pension and social security, which would give his wife a $50K or so job. Or maybe she's self-employed, or something.

Yeah, as noted above. This is why we need single-payer, not to bitch about Obamacare.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
And I so wish the at the NYT or WaPo would round up the Electors and interrogate them. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??!!

Sorry to hear of the deep pain LutheranChik and Other. [Votive]

I do not want to cause any more, but I can I ask about the quote above? Bear in mind I'm from across the Pacific and have limited knowledge of your electoral ways.

What could / should they have done? Are they not beholden to the state's vote? I'd have I missed something? I heard they can bypass the popular candidate if they are a tyrant or otherwise not suitable...I guess that is where you were thinking they should've said No? Or something else?

Thanks.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The somebody says "our income" and not "her income". From the article, he's a retired vet and auto worker - maybe he gets $40K or so when you add up his pension and social security, which would give his wife a $50K or so job. Or maybe she's self-employed, or something.

Yeah, as noted above. This is why we need single-payer, not to bitch about Obamacare.
What is single-payer and how would it help? Does the rate go up the more you earn, so splitting the wages makes the combined sum less?

e.g. on $90k pay $1000 a month.
on $45k pay $300 a month (not $500)
?

[ 25. August 2017, 07:16: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I *think* I know what single-payer is, but I am so glad I don't have to know. I *think* we have a single-payer system in OZ for people who choose to rely on the public system.

Pangolin, an excellent post about Egypt and Pakistan. By 'business as usual' and similar business-oriented phrases I was attempting to dance around a reference to corruption. But you are spot on, my read on the situation in Pakistan is based on past behavior. In my job, we get a few people who are students from the sub-continent working casually. Next time I meet one from Pakistan I'll grill them on the situation. I tell myself that they enjoy it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
What is single-payer and how would it help? Does the rate go up the more you earn, so splitting the wages makes the combined sum less?

e.g. on $90k pay $1000 a month.
on $45k pay $300 a month (not $500)

Single payer is where the government pays for health care costs (they are the single payer) but (in the American instance) provision of health care is done privately.

It would be funded via some form of progressive taxation.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I think everyone everywhere agrees that the American system is the worst -- both costly and ineffective. The question then becomes, which system should we try to work towards? The Canadians do it differently than Sweden or the UK, for instance. We can't just wave the wand and impose the ideal system; there has to be a way to get from where we are now to a better one. You can easily discern that this is a task that calls for maturity, compromise, and patience. Which is to say that Li'l Donny is not going to participate in it. Mercifully, a bipartisan committee in Congress seems willing to cut him right out of the process, and is working on compromise legislation.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
What is single-payer and how would it help? Does the rate go up the more you earn, so splitting the wages makes the combined sum less?

e.g. on $90k pay $1000 a month.
on $45k pay $300 a month (not $500)

Single payer is where the government pays for health care costs (they are the single payer) but (in the American instance) provision of health care is done privately.

It would be funded via some form of progressive taxation.

Essentially correct. Since single payer health care is paid for by the government (i.e. through taxation) the individual cost for health care goes up according to income to the degree that the tax system you're living under is progressive.

It should be noted that single payer is just one form of universal health care. Blogger Kevin Drum compiled a primer, which I'm going to shamelessly crib from here.

quote:
Here’s a very brief primer on the five basic forms of health insurance:


All but that last one are a form of universal health care. You'll note that most of the universal forms of health care provision have some analog in the U.S., but none of those U.S. analogs are built to cover everyone.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
IMHO, I think expanding Medicare to include everyone would be a workable single- payer solution.Medicarw works well for most people I know.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I even know how to get there from here. Currently you get onto Medicare when you are 65. So, suppose the decision is Medicare for all. Next year, the age is 64. This gives the medical industry time to digest the larger number of sign-ons. Next year or the year after, when things have steadied, the age goes down to 63. We keep on doing this, the age gradually lower and lower, until finally everybody's on Medicare. (I would think that by the time you got down to the 30s or so you could just say, OK, everybody into the pool.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The blog above is incomplete so far as the Canadian model is reported. Only hospital and physician services are covered on a fee-for-service basis, and only some medications (not many) by some provinces (not many) in some instances of excessive costs or low income. There is very limited non-physician care in the public system in Canada. And less all the time as removal of coverage occurs due to costs.

Mental health care in hospital emergency rooms for assessment is provided, community based treatment other than psychiatry for medication reviews is generally not covered, and thus user pay (psychological therapy, psychotherapy). Physical therapy, occupational therapy, optometry, speech therapy, chiropractic, family and marital therapy, anything connected to the legal system (e.g., post divorce child custody involvement) are all fee for services - user must pay directly. Many employers, by far not all, will have a limited amount of funds via a private insurance plan to pay for a minimal level of care for some of the non-doctor services.

The main problem I see as someone who does consultation in health care policies is that we have too many hospitals and too much care is provided in hospitals that could be provided in less costly locations. Hospitals are dearly loved by corporate donors so they can put their sponsorship name on the building and essentially have the tax payers reimburse them because they claim it as advertising on taxes. We also have the issue of physicians cornering the market on some services which can be provided by more qualified people at less expense. But it is changing with nurse practitioners, medications being handled by others, non-medicare services paid for by quasi-public agencies who look at cost effectiveness and evidence base, e.g., workers' compensation, public auto injury insurance, RCMP and other police health, veterans, First Nations.

From my vantage point after a fairly lengthy career, I'd say a good starting point for a new public health insurance program would be coverage for catastrophic injuries. Maybe income-dependent coverage for expenses over 10% of income. Which means cancer or serious injury doesn't mean bankruptcy or/and commit suicide.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Because of the oncoming hurricane in Texas, the Washington POST has shut down its paywall. Here's the latest zinger from columnist Alexandra Petri, to get you started.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Do you Canuks have no-fault statutory insurance schemes for road accident and workplace injury No Prophet?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks for the single payer explanations, and subsequent posts. Appreciated.

Is the *socialist* VA veterans? Or the state?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Do you Canuks have no-fault statutory insurance schemes for road accident and workplace injury No Prophet?

There is no Canadian standard (and, btw, no one in Canada likes or uses the word "canuk"). Both these are regulated by the province, and their regimes vary considerably.

John
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Thanks for the single payer explanations, and subsequent posts. Appreciated.

Is the *socialist* VA veterans? Or the state?

The VA is the US Department of Veterans Affairs, which includes as its largest component the Veterans Health Administration.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Do you Canuks have no-fault statutory insurance schemes for road accident and workplace injury No Prophet?

There is no Canadian standard (and, btw, no one in Canada likes or uses the word "canuk"). Both these are regulated by the province, and their regimes vary considerably.

John

Thanks and apologies, didn't realise it was offensive.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Carrying the tangent just a little further -- do people find the name of the Vancouver hockey team offensive? Or is it one of those "We can call ourselves that but you can't" things like "nigga"? (With which I have no problem, but I just wonder if that's the case.)
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
No one in Canada likes or uses the word "canuk"). [/QB]

John Holding doesn't like or use the word, but apparently others do. Wikipedia

quote:
English Canadians use "Canuck" as an affectionate or merely descriptive term for their nationality. It is not considered derogatory in Canada.

If familiar with the term, most citizens of other nations, including the United States, also use it affectionately, though there are individuals who may use it as derogatory term.


 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I wouldn't say that "Canuck" is derogatory as such, but I wouldn't call it affectionate, either, and I certainly don't embrace it. "Canadian" works just fine. As does "bark-eater".

[ 26. August 2017, 07:07: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
And Trump restores the military transgender ban...

Truly we are all going backwards. What a slap in the face to those who serve.

Are the arguments against "oohhhh ikky" ones? I hear about surgery costs paid by the military, which does sound odd at first, but am I right in thinking the military provided healthcare which is used, rather than the military benevolently deciding to fund operations?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
And the Fartletter-in-Chief has pardoned the despicable Joe Arpaio after all. Another notorious criminal free to walk the streets. Just be careful what neighborhoods you wander into, Joe, especially now.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
What with the Lord of Abomination imposing the military transgender ban, pardoning Despicable Joe, and having to watch missiles fired from North Korea, along with the arrival of Hurricane Harvey -

[Votive] [Votive] [Votive] America.

IJ
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
Is the USA tired of all the winning yet?
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Are we "Great Again" yet? [Confused]
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
And the Fartletter-in-Chief has pardoned the despicable Joe Arpaio after all. Another notorious criminal free to walk the streets. Just be careful what neighborhoods you wander into, Joe, especially now.

I eagerly await Senator Clinton's condemnation of the abuse of the Presidential pardon.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
And the Fartletter-in-Chief has pardoned the despicable Joe Arpaio after all. Another notorious criminal free to walk the streets. Just be careful what neighborhoods you wander into, Joe, especially now.

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Arpaio and Trump are two racist turds swirling around each other in a toilet bowl. Time for a nation-wide one-day Latino general strike. Forget the impending government shutdown, shut the whole fucking country down now.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Perhaps Arpaio will be appointed the wall monitor. (Searching for my coat...)
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'd go for that, provided we give him a rolling library ladder to do it on, and absolutely no help whatsoever. (and take any weapons away, natch)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Elsewhere on the internet someone has suggested starting a GoFund Me or a Kickstarter drive for the wall. Let Crooked Don's disciples pay for it; the Mexicans clearly don't intend to.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
I like that!
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Surely that Kickstarter had to be in jest. (It was, wasn't it?)

I find the wall incoherence baffling. First, Mexico will pay for it. They said, No, senor. Trump ignores that and blathers on. Then, during his Arizona sideshow he says that if Congress doesn't pay for pay for the wall, he'll shut the government down in the budget showdown (reminding me of the National Lampoon cover of a border collie with a gun to its head "Buy This Magazine or the Dog Gets It") - and the crowd goes wild, forgetting that America was not supposed to pay for it. So, if it doesn't get built, it's no longer Mexico's fault, but Congress's. If Trump is so rich, let him fund the thing that he so idiotically promised.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
No PG. Vincente Fox, former president of Mexico did not say "no senor", he said "we won't pay for that fucking wall".

He didn't say that trumpy's crack-brained idea was racist, but it was understood.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
This is a worthy parody of Simon and Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" (Confounds the Science).

quote:
...When he talks to crowds of four
he sees ten thousand maybe more,
believing they all think he’s god on earth
and was the product of a virgin birth
and if you disagree you’re the victim of fake news...



[ 27. August 2017, 17:02: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I'm aware of what Fox was reported to have said.

My state of bafflement remains unassuaged.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He is a man who lives purely in the present, and what he said ten months, or ten days, or ten minutes ago, has no effect on what emerges from his mouth (or his Twitter finger) at this present moment. Consistency is for little people.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
whenever I see the word unassuaged I feel like cooking a frankfurter. The feeling is stronger when I see assuage.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Timing is everything. From NPR a little less than two weeks ago: Trump Rolls Back Obama-Era Flood Standards For Infrastructure Projects.

This seems like it might be more relevant today.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I hadn't heard about that.

Do you think he is smart enough to push these things through when people are (rightly) focussed on other egregious acts he has committed? What is being missed by the general populace, or the standard interested observer, when decrying Nazis takes up the headlines (as it should) and gets all the attention (as it should get some, a lot, of attention): what sneaks under the radar?

I know he is not the first to do this...our politicians reveal/sneak through things on Friday evening or when other events are on the agenda, but does he operate this way generally? Can we be too focussed on certain events (probably can never be too focussed on Nazis...can't believe I'm typing that in 2017), and miss more terrible things?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Racist donny pardons racist joey. Ain't that sweet.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
T is supposed to go survey the Harvey flood damage Tuesday. Betcha he will say something stupid, offensive, or wildly ignorant. Or go for the triple crown?

What in the world did those poor people do to be cursed with a visit from him???

[Votive]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What in the world did those poor people do to be cursed with a visit from him???

Voted for him. 74% of them did anyway.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Perhaps he's going to build the greatest, bigliest, beautifullest ark ever and save all the Texans except of course the bad hombres.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What in the world did those poor people do to be cursed with a visit from him???

Voted for him. 74% of them did anyway.
That may be part of it; but presidents are expected to show up for disasters. I just think the folks affected by Harvey have enough problems without T showing up and saying something stupid.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
And the people of the Houston area have enough to deal with without all of the logistics (security, road closures, etc.) of a presidential visit.
[Mad]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Disasters in the US call for great dexterity from politicians. Even one wrong photograph can throw the entire presidency off when it goes viral. (Example: the one of GWB looking out of his helicopter window at Katrina flooding, giving us that 'rich guy surveys the suffering peons from on high' vibe, from which he never recovered.)
Or one off-the-cuff comment. (Example: Mayor Marion Barry in sunny Palm Springs while his city was digging out of a major blizzard. He said, "It'll melt." True! But against a backdrop of palm trees and golf courses it excited fury. He was voted out next November, and his name is still a regional byword in snow removal.)
And when you say 'deft political footwork' the current incumbent is not the first image that leaps into your brain. So the possibilities for disaster loom large.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
And the people of the Houston area have enough to deal with without all of the logistics (security, road closures, etc.) of a presidential visit.
[Mad]

Well, the roads are already closed, so there's one less thing they have to worry about.

I'm surprised someone hasn't said (perhaps they have) that natural disasters such as this are God's way of showing his displeasure over the election results.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What in the world did those poor people do to be cursed with a visit from him???

Voted for him. 74% of them did anyway.
Not sure where you're getting that number from. Texas as a whole voted for Trump by a margin of 53% vs. 44% for Clinton. The specific places he's visiting (last I heard) are Corpus Christi (49%/47% Trump/Clinton split) and Austin (which Clinton carried 66% to 27%. A couple counties in the Houston suburbs (Montgomery and Grimes) did indeed go for Trump 74%, but he's not visiting either of those place, as far as I know. Harris County, where most of Houston is located, was carried by Clinton 54%/42%.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Disasters in the US call for great dexterity from politicians. Even one wrong photograph can throw the entire presidency off when it goes viral. (Example: the one of GWB looking out of his helicopter window at Katrina flooding, giving us that 'rich guy surveys the suffering peons from on high' vibe, from which he never recovered.)

Along with the memorable "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job"
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
My mistake, I misread Houston County for Houston.

There are plenty of Counties with >70% and some >80% for Trump in Texas. Houston is >70%, it's just I now know that Houston is 100km from Houston, which is in fact in Harris.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Disasters in the US call for great dexterity from politicians. Even one wrong photograph can throw the entire presidency off when it goes viral. (Example: the one of GWB looking out of his helicopter window at Katrina flooding, giving us that 'rich guy surveys the suffering peons from on high' vibe, from which he never recovered.)
Or one off-the-cuff comment. (Example: Mayor Marion Barry in sunny Palm Springs while his city was digging out of a major blizzard. He said, "It'll melt." True! But against a backdrop of palm trees and golf courses it excited fury. He was voted out next November, and his name is still a regional byword in snow removal.)
And when you say 'deft political footwork' the current incumbent is not the first image that leaps into your brain. So the possibilities for disaster loom large.

Sitting alone in a conference room at Camp David with an untouched notepad in front of you while your Vice President and cabinet gather in the White House situation room seems like starting off on the wrong metaphorical foot to be deft.

I worry that the American press is so desperate for Trump to be normal and competent that they'll manufacture a narrative to that effect no matter what happens. The late David Broder's column on how George Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina was going to save his presidency comes to mind as an example of this in action.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
[

I'm surprised someone hasn't said (perhaps they have) that natural disasters such as this are God's way of showing his displeasure over the election results.

Tch. Haven't you heard? Everybody knows that it's gay people He's smiting.

I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that pain is the final desperate touch of reality. Yeah, the columnists can spin and spin. (David Brooks has been an idiot for years.) But the people standing chest deep in flood water, they are touching reality. And they cannot be fooled, if the government screws it up. Bush deserved all the stick he got and more. Bullshit falls apart, in the face of real disasters.

[ 29. August 2017, 15:35: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I'm surprised someone hasn't said (perhaps they have) that natural disasters such as this are God's way of showing his displeasure over the election results.

Tch. Haven't you heard? Everybody knows that it's gay people He's smiting.
Fred Clark put together a list of the worst storms in American history and the sins that caused God to send them. Bear in mind that theometeorology is still a field in its infancy.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Ooh, a real word? or is it your own brilliant neologism?
Another example of the maturity and realism of the subject of this topic. As you recall, there had been Craigslist ads for hiring of actors (of color only, please, no white people need apply) to fill in the crowd. Clearly they had not hired enough; perhaps the new guy in the job will have the foresight to pay $15 an hour next time.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
An interesting comment on Hurricane Harvey and climate change:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41082668

The Supremest And Bigliest Leader would, of course, deny this. Doubtless Harvey, to him, is punishment from God for the poor turn-out at his Phoenix Monologue.

IJ
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Getting there as soon it was safe enough - The Donald has actually done something right.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Although if you seek out the pictures, his wife is dressed in 4 inch high heels. Just what you need for a flood zone, yes!

[ 29. August 2017, 21:37: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Can anyone explain to me why the President has been pictured sitting inside in his briefing room at Camp David wearing a baseball cap?

Is it normal for American men to wear hats indoors? That's not my experience, but perhaps it's different in other parts of the country.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Leorning: There is nothing normal about this President. NOTHING.

The hat is a prop to appeal to his elderly blue-collar supporters.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If that is the white one that says USA on the front and TRUMP in the back, he is selling them on his web site. Remember the real purpose of this presidency.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I'm surprised someone hasn't said (perhaps they have) that natural disasters such as this are God's way of showing his displeasure over the election results.

Someone has -- and gotten fired for it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I'm surprised someone hasn't said (perhaps they have) that natural disasters such as this are God's way of showing his displeasure over the election results.

Someone has -- and gotten fired for it.
This whole fucking country is one big hypocrisy.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Dare I inject a hope of optimism?

The sustained resistance.
The, at times, lone voice crying sense in the wilderness.
Some very good journalists who don't treat these issues as simple, but understand the complexity and nuance involved.
And more.

Sure, there are problems. And I don't want to use the G word as it has Trump taint, but you are still pretty damn fantastic in many ways.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

[sniffs. Wipes eyes]

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If that is the white one that says USA on the front and TRUMP in the back, he is selling them on his web site. Remember the real purpose of this presidency.

Reportedly, the campaign was so T could get leverage for renegotiating with NBC execs re his "Celebrity Apprentice" show. (Per his friend Howard Stern.) And he never, ever wanted to do the work of the presidency--said during the campaign by both T and his campaign manager. (Manafort?)

Of course, now that he is (sigh) president, it's all about him, and people liking him, how little work he can get away with, and getting out of that "dump" of a house as often as possible.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Can anyone explain to me why the President has been pictured sitting inside in his briefing room at Camp David wearing a baseball cap?

Is it normal for American men to wear hats indoors? That's not my experience, but perhaps it's different in other parts of the country.

His hair stylist probably didn't have time to do the backcombing of his thatch.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Is it normal for American men to wear hats indoors?

It is rather common (in every sense of the word). Miss Amanda's experience is that few gentlemen (and, alas, few ladies) know the rules of etiquette anymore.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Hat, gentleman, trump
We're talking important things
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If that is the white one that says USA on the front and TRUMP in the back, he is selling them on his web site. Remember the real purpose of this presidency.

Reportedly, the campaign was so T could get leverage for renegotiating with NBC execs re his "Celebrity Apprentice" show. (Per his friend Howard Stern.) And he never, ever wanted to do the work of the presidency--said during the campaign by both T and his campaign manager. (Manafort?)

Of course, now that he is (sigh) president, it's all about him, and people liking him, how little work he can get away with, and getting out of that "dump" of a house as often as possible.

Would that were so! No, the real goal is to funnel as much money into his businesses and pockets while the going is good. Which is why, if you are a lobbyist, a foreign delegation, or in any way hoping to do business with the US government, you would be wise to stay at the Trump Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue ($500 a night, but if you can't afford that he doesn't want to see you anyway). Also the diplomatic functions at his various properties, the using of public funds for the laddish sons to skate around the world doing deals, etc. Not to mention the energetic effort to cut taxes for the .01% and the doing of deals with Russia.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Is it normal for American men to wear hats indoors?

It is rather common (in every sense of the word). Miss Amanda's experience is that few gentlemen (and, alas, few ladies) know the rules of etiquette anymore.
Common. It is a horrible term. Most especially grating when voiced by an American,* but awful anywhere.
Etiquette is another excuse for classicism.


*Because they are supposed to be a classless society.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Etiquette is another excuse for classicism.

In some instances, yes. But not always. It used to be men of every class knew not to wear a hat or cap indoors. It's not hard to take one's cap off when entering a building; not like memorizing which fork to use or which shoes to wear to what kind of affair. Those elements of "etiquette" definitely reinforce classism. The hat thing, not so much.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Can anyone explain to me why the President has been pictured sitting inside in his briefing room at Camp David wearing a baseball cap?

Product placement. The hat is available for $40 from the Trump campaign.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Can anyone explain to me why the President has been pictured sitting inside in his briefing room at Camp David wearing a baseball cap?

I was somewhat bemused that watching TV all weekend was apparently 'monitoring the situation'.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Etiquette is another excuse for classicism.

In some instances, yes. But not always. It used to be men of every class knew not to wear a hat or cap indoors. It's not hard to take one's cap off when entering a building; not like memorizing which fork to use or which shoes to wear to what kind of affair. Those elements of "etiquette" definitely reinforce classism. The hat thing, not so much.
Hats are an example of trickle down etiquette, not absence of its classicism.
Etiquette is designed to separate. Why is wearing a hat indoors disrespectful? Why is wearing one outdoors "proper"?
What to wear, when to wear it and others things are artificial and the rules for doing so are bound to class as, until relative recently, the rich were the only ones with access to the rule books and the time to read them.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Meanwhile, as The Great Pomegranate peddles his trumpery headgear to the unfortunates of Texas, Kim Wrong-Trim is busy chucking missiles out of his pram.

What price Armageddon next week?

IJ
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Etiquette is another excuse for classicism.

In some instances, yes. But not always. It used to be men of every class knew not to wear a hat or cap indoors. It's not hard to take one's cap off when entering a building; not like memorizing which fork to use or which shoes to wear to what kind of affair. Those elements of "etiquette" definitely reinforce classism. The hat thing, not so much.
Hats are an example of trickle down etiquette, not absence of its classicism.
Etiquette is designed to separate. Why is wearing a hat indoors disrespectful? Why is wearing one outdoors "proper"?
What to wear, when to wear it and others things are artificial and the rules for doing so are bound to class as, until relative recently, the rich were the only ones with access to the rule books and the time to read them.

//Tangent

So my saying "please", "thank you", holding a door open, addressing my unintroduced elders (hell, unintroduced anyone), as "Sir" or "Ma'am", "Mr Smith", "Mrs Jones" perpetuates an oppressive class system?

To answer the hat question, removing one's hat is a sign of respect. Even outdoors, one removes one's hat at the passing of a funeral cortege, anthem, hymn, prayer, minute of silence, etc. Or throw it into the air with a "Huzzah!" when the Revolution is declared. (And shortly thereafter lilBuddha will have me up against the wall as a bourgeois counter-revolutionary fashion formalist, my cravat properly knotted and I refusing cigarette and blindfold.)

And the whole "which fork?" thing is an absolute canard. It's cutlery, not astrophysics.

Ranting tangent concluded//

[ 30. August 2017, 21:16: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
People don't normally get their etiquette from books. Ideally you get it from your parents, teachers, Scoutmaster, etc. Or from anybody at church or in the community who sees you screwing up.

(I took on that role a couple weeks ago when the pep squad at my son's school decided the appropriate way to hold a flag while sitting was to drape it along the ground. Like, dudes. We don't do that. Though I've no doubt they meant well.)
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Quite. I was appalled when I moved into a men's residence, and witnessed the most unbelievable stabbing and torturing of the meat on the plate. Following etiquette would actually have made the whole endeavour easier. I felt sorry for them that their parents hadn't taken the time with them, and was then eternally grateful to my mother. At the time I thought that she was being a bitch, but I've learned that she prepared me for all levels of society. I know the 'proper way,' comme il faut*, but never to use it as a cudgel. People are eating ribs with their hands? Use your hands. Using a fork and knife would just mark you out as a doofus.

The thing is, if everyone knows the rules, no one will feel embarrassed, and can just concentrate on the company.

I can't recall the last time that I saw an etiquette manual.

*as is required

[ 30. August 2017, 21:46: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have one right here on my desk. It is very old.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Really? What is it Brenda? How old?

It occurred to me after my post that I was given one some years ago entitled something like A Gay Man's Guide to Etiquette, which covered all the standard stuff, and some peculiarly gay things. (This forum is a bit delicate for me to go into that here, but there was good advice.)

Above I mentioned dining hall crimes. I have wondered what sort of training Trump received. I know that he attended a military academy, that his father was overbearing, and that he had a brother who was considered an embarrassment, but beyond that, I really know nothing of his formation. Is he so well behaved at table as to justify calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig? (Rhetorical: being well behaved means never saying that.) Does he stab at his ketchup-slathered steak? Do crumbs fly out his mouth as eats his most beautiful chocolate cake? What does he drink? How does he drink? I'm genuinely curious.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This should be a free click, an editorial cartoon highly appropriate for this board.

I am the proud possessor of LIGHT ON DARK CORNERS: A Complete Sexual Science. A Guide to Purity and Physical Manhood. Advice to Maiden, Wife and Mother, Love Courtship and Marriage (1900). It is
available in electronic format so that you too can read the best advice of the day. The inconsistencies inherent in the work from page to page make me reel. No, beauty in woman is meaningless! It is her inner soul that makes her lovely! Here are some complexion tips and ideas on how to improve your hair. No, one should only marry for love, but here is a long numbered list of things to choose when you look to marry, including the height of the guy, his income, his teeth, and the shape of his skull (flat heads, bad!).
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
lilbuddha:
quote:
Etiquette is another excuse for classicism.
<assuming you mean classism> Yes, but you do need *some* rules of politeness in order for society to function. Saying please and thank you, for example, as Pangolin Guerre mentioned. The fact that some people have ridiculously over-complicated the rules so they can look down their noses at people who don't know them doesn't mean we should abandon the idea of having rules completely.

<tangent> of course classicism, or an obsessive interest in Ancient Rome and Greece, used to be one of the ways that classism was perpetuated... <\tangent>
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
There's nothing complicated about "A gentleman always removes his hat indoors except for religious reasons" or "a lady is always correct in a hat except in her own home or her own place of business."

Now, when we get to "A gentleman never wears brown after sunset" we might have something to discuss.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
There's nothing complicated about "A gentleman always removes his hat indoors except for religious reasons".

Does that include Texans wearing Stetsons?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
There's nothing complicated about "A gentleman always removes his hat indoors except for religious reasons" or "a lady is always correct in a hat except in her own home or her own place of business."

The whole hat thing is of relatively recent vintage (if we take the nineteenth century* to be "relatively recent"). And it was originally more complicated than you indicate. A man would wear a hat outdoors, but indoors would remove it if within a private space, but leave it on in a public space, unless it was a theatre. I remember someone expressing shock at seeing early tintypes and daguerreotypes of Victorians wearing hats while eating at restaurants! [Eek!] Unless it was a higher end establishment, in which case hat removal was expected as in a private space. And the rules were different for waiters and other workers in these spaces, who were typically expected to be hatless regardless of whether it was a hatted or hatless space for patrons. The simplified version you're citing seems to be of even more recent vintage, probably the inter-war period, or even post-World War II.

And returning to the subject of the thread, Trump giving a speech about cutting his own taxes while Texas drowns is the most Republican thing that has ever happened.


--------------------
*There was definitely hat etiquette prior to the nineteenth century, but the rules were not as agreed upon and had many more exceptions, provisos, and codicils depending on the social rank of those involved in whatever situation was at hand.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
King Charles II removed his hat when George Fox did not, citing "It is customary for only one man to wear a hat where the king is present". I paraphrase. He was probably wittier.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I'm sure there was also a geographical etiquette. Americans or Cubans were doing it differently, you can bet.
We can almost pinpoint the moment in time when hats for men fell out of fashion. It was January 1960, when John Kennedy went to his inauguration without a hat. I can just remember my father's fedora, but I cannot remember him ever wearing it. These days men will wear baseball caps (and Stetsons but only if you're Texan) but that's about it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

So my saying "please", "thank you", holding a door open, addressing my unintroduced elders (hell, unintroduced anyone), as "Sir" or "Ma'am", "Mr Smith", "Mrs Jones" perpetuates an oppressive class system?

Manners ≠ etiquette.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
<assuming you mean classism>

dagnabit yes.
quote:

Yes, but you do need *some* rules of politeness in order for society to function.

Not debating this. Politeness is an essential tool. Still, there are a number of rules of politeness that are more about stratification than interconnection.
I will hold a door for anyone who follows closely behind, but I delight in holding it for men. Especially macho types. Drives them mental.

[ 31. August 2017, 15:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
lilBuddha, I think that the differentiation between manners and etiquette is deliberately tendentious. You're applying a nuance to "etiquette" which is not definitionally present.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'm sure there was also a geographical etiquette. Americans or Cubans were doing it differently, you can bet.

Definitely.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
lilBuddha, I think that the differentiation between manners and etiquette is deliberately tendentious. You're applying a nuance to "etiquette" which is not definitionally present.

Yes, I am. It is not 'definitionally' present, but it is functionally present. But more accurately, I am applying a "nuance" that is foundational to its existence.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Doesn't some of this discussion seem a bit far from the thread's topic? Do some of you want to have a separate thread on etiquette?

A comment I heard (Dan Rather, interviewed by Chris Hayes on MSNBC) is that Trump is afraid of something specific which may come out in Mueller's investigation. As he certainly is not a man to face his fears, he is busy trying to distract and obstruct.

Does that sound about right? Do we have speculations as to what he fears?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
A comment I heard (Dan Rather, interviewed by Chris Hayes on MSNBC) is that Trump is afraid of something specific which may come out in Mueller's investigation. As he certainly is not a man to face his fears, he is busy trying to distract and obstruct.

Does that sound about right? Do we have speculations as to what he fears?

Everything Donald Trump has done relating to the Russia investigation is exactly the actions you'd expect of someone who is both guilty and worried about it.

If we're going to engage in speculation, my guess is that at the root it's all going to come back to money. Trump has had bankruptcies in the past and my guess is that his business empire is (or recently was) mortgaged to the hilt. Most legitimate western banks have cut him off (and credit is the lifeblood of modern business generally and real estate in particular). The one exception is Deutsche Bank, which has some shady connections of its own. So I'm speculating that at some point in the recent past, likely before he ever seriously considered running for president, Donald Trump (who needed fast cash) met up with some Russian oligarchs and mobsters (who needed cash laundered) and an arrangement was made. Now the marker is being called in in the form of presidential favors (lift the sanctions, take a soft position on Crimea, etc.).

Pure speculation, but it fits the known facts.

For those who are interested Seth Abramson has a long (60 tweets plus six addenda) Twitter thread on who Carter Page is and what his likely connections to both Trump and Russia are.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, he's definitely in terror of something coming out. What that something is is the question of questions. We can rank the possibilities:

1. He's not a billionaire, maybe not even a millionaire. A thousandaire? -Very- embarrassing (the reluctance to release his tax returns), but that's all.
2. He colluded with the Russians to trash Hillary Clinton. This calls his election into question, intolerable. Impeachment, however, is probably not a possibility, as long as the GOP is in power. The statement 'water under the bridge' comes into play here.
3. The Russians have him by the financial balls. This is treasonous; if he has abused his office by favoring them he is surely liable for a jail sentence after the impeachment. Which, if this is egregious enough (and if you put the word 'egregious' into Google a picture of Lyin' Don comes up) the GOP might even sign in for.
 
Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :
 
Forgive me for asking a side question, but even with congress in the hands of the Republicans. If Mueller's probe turns up the corroborating evidence of Trump's treason. Isn't such a possible charge automatic grounds for impeachment,no matter who's holding Congressional power?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:
Forgive me for asking a side question, but even with congress in the hands of the Republicans. If Mueller's probe turns up the corroborating evidence of Trump's treason. Isn't such a possible charge automatic grounds for impeachment,no matter who's holding Congressional power?

Nothing about impeachment is "automatic". It's a political process with political actors and can only be triggered deliberately.

The current House of Representatives has 240 Republicans, 194 Democrats, and 1 vacant seat (UT-3). An impeachment would require 218 votes (a simple majority) in the House, so 24 Republican House members would need to cross the aisle to impeach Trump, assuming all Democrats vote in favor of doing so. If evidence were egregious enough I could see 10% of House Republicans breaking to vote in favor of impeachment, but it would probably be close.

All impeachments are tried in the Senate, which requires a two-thirds supermajority to convict. The current Senate is composed of 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats. Assuming that all Democrats (plus Bernie Sanders and Angus King) are willing to vote to convict Trump (and thereby remove him from office) 19 Republican Senators would have to be willing to vote with them to actually convict Trump. Or looked at from the opposite perspective, Trump would need to retain the loyalty of at least 34 Senators to avoid conviction in the case of impeachment. Given that, I don't see an impeachment being able to proceed successfully to conviction in the Senate absent some kind of iron-clad and indisputable evidence of actual treason, fully intended and committed.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No. It is true what Crooked Don said, that if he shot someone to death on Fifth Avenue no one would convict. It will call for something truly egregious, utterly shameful (which is to say, even MORE egregious and shameful than everything that has happened to date) before the GOP grows a spine and does its duty.
One can, in the imagination, sort through the scenarios to find one horrific enough. Video of him fellating Putin? Nah. Bank statements, with the rubles being deposited? Please. I'm afraid it will call for blood. Someone has to die, someone white (of course) and male.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Meanwhile, it seems as though The Supreme Trumpkin is having a bit of a spat with his Russian pals:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41115352

Is this of any major significance?

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
This impeachment stuff becomes more interesting if the Democrats can win control of both houses in 2018. It's not likely at all, as I understand things, but I hope every effort is being made to make this happen.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re T and Houston:

Saw a little coverage of VP Pence's visit to the area. He may be a creep, in many ways. But *that's* the presidential response to disaster that T didn't do.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
This impeachment stuff becomes more interesting if the Democrats can win control of both houses in 2018. It's not likely at all, as I understand things, but I hope every effort is being made to make this happen.

The Senate, in particular, is a very heavy lift for the Democrats to flip. They'd need to make a net gain of 3 seats out of the 33 up for election this time. Of those 33 only 8 are currently held by Republicans. (The last time these particular Senate seats were up for election was 2012, when the Democrats won big. Of course the drawback to winning big is that you've got more to defend next time around.) I can see the Democrats knocking off Dean Heller (NV) and maybe Jeff Flake (AZ). A longer shot would be Ted Cruz (TX), who gives off that creepy serial killer vibe but is still a Republican from Texas. Other than that I'm not seeing any obviously vulnerable Republicans, absent some kind of scandal.

So knocking off those three would get the Democrats the Senate, but only if they didn't lose anywhere else, which is tough in a year they've got to defend Senate seats in places like Montana and North Dakota.

It should also be noted that simply having a majority isn't enough to convict on an impeachment in the Senate. That requires a two-thirds supermajority (67 senators), which is a mathematical impossibility for Democrats to achieve in 2018.

[ 01. September 2017, 14:25: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Turns out that Trump (very likely) has fewer business assets and wealth than he's been claiming.

He's quite literally worth-less.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Turns out that Trump (very likely) has fewer business assets and wealth than he's been claiming.

He's quite literally worth-less.

There's been quite a bit of thought that this is why he won't release his tax returns.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Ah, I see - so, the Emperor may indeed have no clothes?

[Snigger]

Seriously, though, if he is, in fact, much less wealthier (in worldly terms) than he would like us to think, will that make any difference to his minions, myrmidons, and toadies?

IJ
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Ah, I see - so, the Emperor may indeed have no clothes?

[Snigger]

Seriously, though, if he is, in fact, much less wealthier (in worldly terms) than he would like us to think, will that make any difference to his minions, myrmidons, and toadies?

IJ

Reminds me of this one.
quote:
NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small,
- a Parks Department spokesman explained.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Killing me]

but also

[Projectile]

(Gosh, what a wonderful idea for a new sex toy - an inflatable, naked Trumpkin, to be sold only to white, right-wing, evangellos....and then again, perhaps not....).

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
They have not cared about all his myriad other lies, so I don't think it'll make a scrap of difference to them. To him, however, it will be a crushing blow. The man has lived all his life being the Best, the Biggest, the etc. etc. etc. He has an ego like spun sugar, in need of the most delicate handling, to the point where his staff compiles binders full of positive coverage and compliments for him to peruse daily.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I almost feel sorry for him, as it's no fun being a pauper. Read Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, and imagine The Naked Emperor in front of the Board...

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You have a kindly nature. After all Li'l Donny's nastiness about people being poor (or foreign, or ugly, etc. etc. etc.) I want him to get some of his own back.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I did say almost ... [Biased]

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Side Issue

Pro-Trump propaganda. The UK is saved!

(I dipped occasionally into Fox News, to see how they spin Trump's various disasters. Educational in a bizarre sort of way. But apparently there were only a couple of thousand of us a day in the UK who ever bothered.)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
OTOH, *we're* getting Daily Mail TV soon, on broadcast TV, I think.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Nooooooo!

Toxic!
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Gosh, I'd missed the announcement of that one. USA only mercifully, but my apologies to all US shipmates from this side of the pond.

Like you, B62, I do maintain a watching brief over news views from all sources around the world as much as I can. I'm determined not to get sucked into a bubble or echo-chamber, but it does involve much teeth-gnashing these days. Never Fox news though, as I don't subscribe to Sky.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I see from BBC News that The Lord Of Heaven is due to visit Houston again (this time, to meet with flood victims and aid workers), and that he has declared tomorrow (Sunday) as a 'National Day of Prayer' for said victims.

O for an outpouring of prayer that the Egregious Emperor will acknowledge that global warming is happening...

IJ
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
There's nothing complicated about "A gentleman always removes his hat indoors except for religious reasons".

Does that include Texans wearing Stetsons?
Backing up the thread a little, some years ago cinemas in Fort Worth would put up a message on the screen before the film, requesting gentlemen to remove their hats - a hard thing for a Texan to do.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I trust that Texan gentlemen will indeed remove their hats when addressed by their Lord And Master Of The Thatched Head today.

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I trust that Texan gentlemen will indeed remove their hats when addressed by their Lord And Master Of The Thatched Head today.

IJ

Remove their beloved Stetsons? You'll remove their hats from their cold, dead heads!

[Eek!]
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I trust that Texan gentlemen will indeed remove their hats when addressed by their Lord And Master Of The Thatched Head today.

IJ

......and their birettas?
[Two face]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It happened.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
This impeachment stuff becomes more interesting if the Democrats can win control of both houses in 2018. It's not likely at all, as I understand things, but I hope every effort is being made to make this happen.

The Senate, in particular, is a very heavy lift for the Democrats to flip. They'd need to make a net gain of 3 seats out of the 33 up for election this time. Of those 33 only 8 are currently held by Republicans. (The last time these particular Senate seats were up for election was 2012, when the Democrats won big. Of course the drawback to winning big is that you've got more to defend next time around.) I can see the Democrats knocking off Dean Heller (NV) and maybe Jeff Flake (AZ). A longer shot would be Ted Cruz (TX), who gives off that creepy serial killer vibe but is still a Republican from Texas. Other than that I'm not seeing any obviously vulnerable Republicans, absent some kind of scandal.

So knocking off those three would get the Democrats the Senate, but only if they didn't lose anywhere else, which is tough in a year they've got to defend Senate seats in places like Montana and North Dakota.

It should also be noted that simply having a majority isn't enough to convict on an impeachment in the Senate. That requires a two-thirds supermajority (67 senators), which is a mathematical impossibility for Democrats to achieve in 2018.

Aaaargh! I didn't realise it was that difficult!

I also saw on the news today that there's a Democrat Senator from New Jersey who is up on corruption charges for accepting luxury holidays from a Dentist. Why is a Dentist (who is also charged) trying to corrupt a United States Senator? That's not a question.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I also saw on the news today that there's a Democrat Senator from New Jersey who is up on corruption charges for accepting luxury holidays from a Dentist.

Bob Menendez, and yes, it is truly shocking that a politician from New Jersey may be corrupt! [Roll Eyes]

The additional complicating factor is that if Menendez is convicted and the Senate decides to expel him prior to January 16, 2018, New Jersey's term-limited Republican governor, Chris Christie, would be able to appoint a Republican to fill the remainder of Menendez's term. His seat is one of the Democratic seats up for election in 2018 so the hypothetical interim Senator would only serve about a year (Menendez still says he's going to run for re-election, but what else can he say at this point?), but it's a seat the Democrats can't afford to lose even for that long.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
What is it about New Jersey? Is it so pervasive "good" people get caught up, with a little bribe here, a little looking the other way there?

Is it on both sides, or does it favour the one?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

I don't know that much about NJ. But, reportedly, lots of current and retired mafiosi and other organized crime folks live there. And New Jerseyans, in general, have a reputation for a lot of moxie, outer toughness, verbal boldness, etc.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
...when you're president, and the Secret Service agents
quote:
joke about jumping in front of the president to “take a bullet” to protect him. “I might be taking a bullet fired from a fellow agent.”
and

an aide "said she fears for her safety if her name is used. 'I think our president is insane!'" (Capitol Hill Blue)

...you might have a problem.
[Eek!]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
ABC News: Trump Deals with the Democrats

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh! I'm more excited than Tom Gleeson on Hard Quiz, who walks onto the set every time like he can't believe they let him on TV again!

What a boost for the 2018 campaign! Republicans in Congress: GRIDLOCK. Democrats in Congress: GET SHIT DONE.

Then you do a whispering campaign about how Trump needs the Democrats in Congress to implement his programme. Then when the Dems get into power they SHAFT TRUMP LIKE A BASTARD. Of course they have to be tricky and clever about this because they will need help from some Republicans. But when they're in position to strike they STRIKE LIKE THEY'VE NEVER STRUCK BEFORE, leaving him bloodied and blinded but still able to hear their cries of victory.

Ahhh politics, how I love thee.

[ 08. September 2017, 01:58: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
What a boost for the 2018 campaign! Republicans in Congress: GRIDLOCK. Democrats in Congress: GET SHIT DONE.

Although it's not as glamorous as being president, Nancy Pelosi seems like the most effective Speaker of the House / Minority Leader since Sam Rayburn, or possibly since Henry Clay. She seems to have an almost supernatural ability to maintain party discipline, whether in the minority or the majority, and strong strategic sense of how to split the opposition.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
What was that about party discipline? On her watch the Democrats have gone from a majority in the House to an ever increasing minority. Not sure how that can be labeled success.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
On her watch the Democrats have gone from a majority in the House to an ever increasing minority. Not sure how that can be labeled success.

I'm not sure how much the Speaker is responsible for the electoral fortunes of each individual member of her caucus. More to the point, the idea that the main purpose of having political power is keeping political power seems warped. The main purpose of having political power is advancing your agenda. Passing Obamacare, to cite one obvious example, was politically costly in terms of Congressional seats (at least in the near term), but it accomplished a longstanding Democratic goal that had previously eluded every post-war Democratic administration (with the possible exception of the creation of Medicare and Medicaid under Johnson). Being able to preserve past gains while in the minority (because if you're in the House any length of time you're going to spend some time in the minority) can be just as important, like the way Pelosi managed to keep any Democrats from breaking ranks on the attempt to appeal Obamacare.

If you're obsessed with 'keeping your powder dry' and holding on to power at the expense of accomplishing anything, you'll never get anything done (e.g. the current Republican caucus, especially the Tea Party faction).

I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by "an ever increasing minority". Isn't that a good thing? Being in the minority, but increasing? At any rate, I'm not sure the analysis holds up. Pelosi first served as the leader of House Democrats in 2003 (108th Congress) with a caucus of 205 Democrats plus 1 independent who caucused with the Democrats. How has the caucus fared since then?


The figures given are for the start of each legislative session in January. I'm not sure there's a clear trajectory there, nor am I convinced that if there were it could be attributed to the decisions of Pelosi.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
ABC News: Trump Deals with the Democrats

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh! I'm more excited than Tom Gleeson on Hard Quiz, who walks onto the set every time like he can't believe they let him on TV again!

What a boost for the 2018 campaign!

It was fun, but by itself it won't matter at all in the 2018 campaign. What will matter is whether the Democrats can exact a cost in return for their votes when the debt ceiling comes up again in December. They need to do things like this again and again and again for it all to matter next year.

Also, think a bit more about whether you want to see the big orange asshole being able to claim that he got stuff done, even if it's stuff the Democrats want to get done.

But if you want to simply enjoy the feeling a bit longer -- and I certainly did enjoy it myself! -- listen to the Pod Save America episode from September 7. The former Obama staffers on that show had a field day with how stupid a move this was on Trump's part.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The former Obama staffers on that show had a field day with how stupid a move this was on Trump's part.

Was it a stupid move from Trump's perspective? Sure, from the perspective of advancing the Republican legislative agenda it's a fail, but unlike most Republican politicians what Trump mostly seems to care about is getting 'wins' and positive media attention. He seems to be getting both out of this move.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Was it a stupid move from Trump's perspective?

One supposes Trump doesn't want Republicans to start wondering whether it would be easier to advance their legislative agenda under President Pence.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Was it a stupid move from Trump's perspective?

One supposes Trump doesn't want Republicans to start wondering whether it would be easier to advance their legislative agenda under President Pence.
Why would they wonder that? Of all the factors involved in recent Republican legislative failures, Trump himself seems to be the least significant. I don't any reason to believe that Ryan or McConnell would suddenly become more competent at moving legislation through their respective chambers simply by the prospect of having the signature on the final bill say "Pence" instead of "Trump".

There are a lot of things Trump can be legitimately blamed for, but legislative dysfunction is not one of them.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Was it a stupid move from Trump's perspective?

One supposes Trump doesn't want Republicans to start wondering whether it would be easier to advance their legislative agenda under President Pence.
Why would they wonder that? Of all the factors involved in recent Republican legislative failures, Trump himself seems to be the least significant.
When a group is looking for a scapegoat to explain its failures finding a candidate with significant causal responsibility for the failures is something of an optional extra. The Republican leadership may or may not be that sort of group. I wouldn't know for certain.

In any case, as an outsider I have the impression that a President with a good working relationship with the legislature and the ability and willingness to bang heads together can have an effect in helping get things done? At least, I got the impression that Obama wasn't just sitting in the White House firing off passive-aggressive tweets while the healthcare legislation passed, even if he didn't have any formal part in the process.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
IMHO Trump's only guiding principle is "stir crap up." I will say this for him, he imagines creative ways to stir that would never have entered my head. And I think myself creative!

[ 08. September 2017, 18:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In any case, as an outsider I have the impression that a President with a good working relationship with the legislature and the ability and willingness to bang heads together can have an effect in helping get things done? At least, I got the impression that Obama wasn't just sitting in the White House firing off passive-aggressive tweets while the healthcare legislation passed, even if he didn't have any formal part in the process.

To a certain extent, but the reputation of presidents for being able "to bang heads together" and move votes in the legislature is over-rated. Senators and Congressmen/women know they don't depend on the president for their jobs.

Using the Affordable Care Act as an example, Obama actually took a somewhat 'hands off' approach to the legislation that would eventually be colloquially known by his name. In part this was a reaction to the failure of the Clinton health reform, where the White House took the lead and the bill failed. But yes, despite the fact that Pelosi and Reid took the lead on passing the bill Obama was far more involved in passing the Affordable Care Act than Trump has been in trying to repeal that act. Obama hosted summits with Republican legislators, toured the country raising public support for the proposed legislation, proposed possible fixes for Republican objections to the bill, and at the end of the process the result was . . . zero Republican votes in favor of the ACA in either house of Congress.

Given that a dynamic and engaged executive like Obama wasn't able to move legislative votes for his key priority, I don't think legislators are going to be any more willing to shift their votes for a pinched-looking mother-wived God-botherer like Pence than they are for the Twitterer in Darkness.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Halfway through home duties, had a thought that possibly belongs here, but may warrant a new thread. Who was the last President to be respected by just about everyone in American political life?

FDR? A proper war-President, but a damned class traitor?
Truman?
Kennedy? The dirty Mick? Was he there long enough to overcome Protestant prejudice?
Tricky Dicky? Surely not, but what about before the shit hit the fan?
Reagan? He was despised overseas, but did he command respect at home, perhaps after the USSR collapsed?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Who was the last President to be respected by just about everyone in American political life?

George Washington.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I think that this is material for a separate thread, but, to respond, every example you mention had a substantial opposition. Nixon even well before Watergate ('72 landslide not withstanding) was unpopular with a lot of people. Probably FDR comes closest, but the Depression and WW II are special cases. With Trump, we're in a whole new territory of visceral loathing.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
My mother's parents did not like FDR. They thought he abused his power, and they thought Hoover was scapegoated for things that weren't his fault.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I meant to add this earlier. It's an interview with John le Carre from CBC's Writers and Company. I heard it on the radio yesterday afternoon, but the link is to the extended interview, so I can't give you the precise time when le Carre utters one of the pithiest assessments of Trump and his White House. It would have been at about the 45 minute mark in the radio version. Oh, hell, listen to the whole thing. It's worth it.

[ 11. September 2017, 04:14: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I doubt there's been any president that most Americans have liked.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Ohher, are you *sure* about Washington? What about CherryTreeGate?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
What about CherryTreeGate?

Apocryphal.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Precisely my point - if the famous story about George Washington's honesty at the age of six is a lie, *how can we trust anything else we've been told about him*?! [Two face]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Well, it's no more of a lie than the stories Jesus told to illustrate points he was trying to make. Apocryphal or not, the story of George Washington and the Cherry Tree endears us to the boy who would never tell a lie even when the truth was likely to cause him grief. But we digress.

As President, though, Washington was not as universally beloved as we might prefer to remember.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So apparently Attorney-General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III wants to require all National Security Council staff to submit to a polygraph test to figure out who has been leaking to the press. A couple points.

First, this kind of wide-sweeping internal loyalty check seems pretty reminiscent of paranoid police states.

Second, Axios does not say how it obtained this information, not even a nod to "anonymous sources", though the fact that the report exists means that Sessions' (allegedly planned) attempt to crack down on leakers has been leaked.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
As valid would be to cast horoscopes. There is no validity to polygraphs. None.

Is it just me or does this Sessions fellow look like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine fame.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
If I had my Pluto in Scorpio, I'd be shaking in my boots!
(Which, of course, I don't I swear! Test me! Er... cast my chart!)

[ 11. September 2017, 19:13: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As valid would be to cast horoscopes. There is no validity to polygraphs. None.

I disagree. Casting a horoscope doesn't have the same invasive intrusiveness as hooking up various meters and probes to a person's body. A polygraph is a much more valid method of intimidation.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
They are both stress interviews where the subtle nonverbals are manipulated by the interviewee. I agree that physiological measures are more intrusive. There is also neurofeedback monitoring which I am sure they'd use.

The point though that I was making is that astrology and polygraph are about equivalent scientifically, i.e., no basis. The only skill involved in skilful interviewing, but terribly biased, fraught with error, supposition and nonsense.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
'...terribly biased, fraught with error, supposition and nonsense.'

A good description of the Lord of Shadows' administration (with apologies to all those good, decent, hardworking folk who toil and travail daily within it, on account of having health insurance to pay for).

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
First sentence should read "interviewer" not "interviewee".
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
It has occurred to me that the obvious way to beat a polygraph is to practice: find someone with a polygraph to help and teach yourself by biofeedback to be as nervous as possible, thus always registering as a liar. If they can't get a baseline, they're out of business. (I have not tested this.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Polygraph Testing Too Flawed for Security Screening, a pretty good summary.

"The federal government should not rely on polygraph examinations for screening prospective or current employees to identify spies or other national-security risks because the test results are too inaccurate when used this way, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council."

It's crap. It may also be illegal, though I don't know about the USA law on this. Notwithstanding that illegality hasn't stopped USA from torture, this isn't directly assaultive physically to a human being, and the current dude instils less confidence than the torture president.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I bet sessions is trying to make himself look tough for fart face.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Just watched most of a PBS update on the Russia probe. Before the "bored now" reaction kicked in, I noted that the targets were said to be Manafort, Donald Trump Jr and one other whose name escapes me, or maybe just those two. The focus in this part of the story was on the substantive collusion issue, not the cover-up.

Anyway what surprised me was that Kushner's name was not mentioned. I didn't realise that he was no longer in the frame and it surprised me, given his connections to convicted criminals. Does anyone know why Kushner might be getting away with it?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The easiest and very well-known way to fudge the results is with your bladder. The polygraph detects slight muscle tension; you allegedly get tender when you lie. You can always and invisibly tense and relax your pee reflex.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You can always and invisibly tense and relax your pee reflex.

The makers of Depends must love you, my dear. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Women call this Kegel exercises; there must be some male quivalent.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
You know I think I might buy Hilary's book. When reading a little summary about her comments on her long-serving assistant, her fundamental decency comes through. She reminds me of my wife in this respect, loyal and respectful of her colleagues.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
More BS about trumpy's ahem-Christian support re immigration this evening. These people are heathens, ain't Christian:

Ring them bells ye heathen from the cities that dream
Ring them bells from your sanctuaries cross the valleys and streams
For they're deep and wide, and world's on its side
Times running backwards and so is the bride.

(Bob Dylan knew that heathens took over the sanctuaries and have been ringing the bells, putting the world into megastorm sell your planet, and bride-church is running away at freighttrain speed, no slow train)
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
More BS about trumpy's ahem-Christian support re immigration this evening. These people are heathens, ain't Christian

I don't know about that. They seem perfectly consistent with American Christianity as it's been practiced for quite some time now. Fred Clark discusses this in the not-entirely-unrelated matter of racially gerrymandered Congressional districts:

quote:

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 partisan decision, said, you know, whatever — racial gerrymandering to disenfranchise black and Hispanic voters is totally cool with them. Hey, after all, that’s how those five justices got appointed and approved in the first place, right?

This is just the latest in the ongoing, unbroken string of weird coincidence. As in the disgraceful Shelby County ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act, and in Citizens United, and in every other such decision, it always just happens to turn out that it’s the “pro-life” justices who decide against voting rights for nonwhite citizens and who seek to strike down any limits on corporate power.

It’s just the darnedest thing. After all, these justices were all appointed thanks to a generation of politicized white evangelicals who have insisted that it is their sacred Christian duty to ensure the judiciary is stacked with anti-abortion judges. Yet every one of the judges appointed and supported by this anti-abortion effort has been — unwaveringly — opposed to full and equal voting rights for nonwhite American citizens while also fighting to restore the no-holds-barred unregulated corporatism of the Lochner-era court of the Gilded Age.

Just a weird coincidence, I guess. Just one of those things. I mean — it’s not like the white evangelical political movement that replaced what had formerly been an evangelical religious movement is deliberately trying to deny full equality to nonwhite Americans, right? And just because every result of the religious right has been a boon to corporate power doesn’t mean that this was its agenda all along. Shelby County and Citizens United were just unfortunate, unintended side effects, right?

“We demand judges who will criminalize abortion!”

“How about judges who will demolish voting rights and overturn all limits on corporate power?”

“Yes, that.”

How long does that pattern have to continue before we’re allowed to talk about what it obviously, undeniably means?

In another not-entirely-unrelated story, the Trump Organization seems to be trying to stuff their boss's birtherism down the memory hole. I guess yesterday's dogwhistle is too outdated for today's discriminating audiences.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I was just attending to chamber business when it occurred to me that if convention was strictly applied, we should refer to David Duke as Grand Wizard (ret.) David Duke.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
In other news, The Dark Lord has annoyed, nay vexed, our Dear Prime Minister Mrs. Maybe, by speculating (on Twitter, of course [Roll Eyes] ) that those responsible for today's terrorist incident on a London Underground train were known already to our pleecemen.

Would somebody please tell The Dark Lord to bloody well shut up, and keep his Orange Nose out of our affairs? Pretty please?

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
He cannot even get sympathy right.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
He cannot even get sympathy right.

Sympathy is about other people. Trump doesn't do other people.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Applies to his budget as well: America first, Americans last.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I thought that I had become inured to Trump, that I would just shrug, and carry on with my day, allowing the Quiet Voice in the back room of my mind to continue its prayers that we avoid the Apocalypse. Then...

This morning the radio tells me that Mexico offered assistance to the victims of Harvey - which I thought rather magnanimous, given Trump's habitual abuse of Mexico and Mexicans - but it took Trump a week to phone Pena Nieto to offer condolences for the victims of the earthquake. Apparently his tweets regarding Mexico following the earthquake focussed on the immuring of his delicate republic. Why? Poor phone connections. Erm... no. Photos of people in situ, on their cell phones. Fuck me. A simple act of protocol: "Enrique, how are thing? Could you use a hand?" It's not as though Trump couldn't afford the 30 minutes. What the fuck else is he doing? He displays the behaviour of a 14 year old hyper-entitled shit. He cannot be impeached too soon. Rant done.

[ 16. September 2017, 22:06: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Suspect I heard the same radio. It made me wonder: is he channelling the stream of consciousness of 1/3 of his country? He thinks and acts like his base. And then says precisely what is in his mind. What I recall being talked to about when I was 10: that it isn't necessary to put voice (in his case twitter) to every single thing that courses through one's brain.

I also recall realising at 15 that because I'd learned this at 10, it wasn't me who was getting beaten up at school every day. trumpy evidently avoided necessary beatings, or got beaten too much. Either way, am I wrong to think he has anger problems. And that 1/3 of his country has anger problems.

[ 16. September 2017, 22:52: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
T is addressing the UN, either today or tomorrow. If he says the wrong thing there...
[Paranoid] [Help]

Russia and China reportedly won't be attending.

I wonder what would happen if everyone walked out on him? Or took their translation gear off, making a production of it?

[Votive]

[ 18. September 2017, 10:46: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
T is addressing the UN, either today or tomorrow. . . . I wonder what would happen if everyone walked out on him? Or took their translation gear off, making a production of it?

From your lips to God's ear. Much more obviously effective than sending hurricanes our way, don't you think so, God? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russia and China reportedly won't be attending.

"They get all the breaks," mutter both Matthew Rycroft (U.K.) and Christoph Heusgen (Germany).
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
He tweeted a meme of himself assaulting a woman with a golf ball. Normalizing misogyny. Normalizing racism's many sides. We have crossed over.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
He tweeted a meme of himself assaulting a woman with a golf ball. Normalizing misogyny.

Whilst I think the current POTUS is indeed a disgusting misogynist, I'm not sure this particular meme is misogynistic. Unless you argue that Hillary's stumble was only ever remarked upon because of her sex, it seems like a thing that could be done to a political opponent of any sex.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
T loathes Hillary. These days, it's primarily because people made it clear to him that she really did win the popular vote. And his very broken "I have to win to be loved" mind/heart can't accept that at all. (His dad impressed that firmly on all the kids.)

IIRC, T reportedly supported H the first time she ran.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
He tweeted a meme of himself assaulting a woman with a golf ball. Normalizing misogyny.

Whilst I think the current POTUS is indeed a disgusting misogynist, I'm not sure this particular meme is misogynistic. Unless you argue that Hillary's stumble was only ever remarked upon because of her sex, it seems like a thing that could be done to a political opponent of any sex.
I find the memory of prior things he said won't leave me. Did I really link up the recent tweet with stuff like this unjustifiably?:
quote:
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Trump said. "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."
Link.

I felt it was a continuation of his violent wishes aimed at this particular woman, and it is continuous with his direct admission of sexual assault against women generally. The only nice thing about this guy is that no-one needs to invent any slurs or exaggerations about him, you can just quote him.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Wha are people's thoughts on "the redemption of Spicer", e.g at the Emmy's? Is he being used by the left-leaning media? does he care? is it odd he is treated with such welcome now? Perhaps it ever was...I just found pictures of "stars" lining up with him odd.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

I've only seen a brief clip. (Didn't watch the Emmys.) It's funny and/or clever, in a sense. It's something that Stephen Colbert might pull on his "The Late Show". I'm not sure it was right for the Emmys. BTW, I saw something yesterday saying Spicer "crashed Colbert's monologue". I don't know whether the reporter believed that. Crashing wasn't even part of the premise--Stephen called out for Spicer.

What shocked me a bit was finding out today is that Spicer is a fellow at Harvard. Seriously? Seriously!
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

What shocked me a bit was finding out today is that Spicer is a fellow at Harvard. Seriously? Seriously!

"Fellow" in this context doesn't mean much. It means he is going to lead a non-credit study group or something this semester. A whole bunch of C-list political hacks have made the list. Until the press found out, Chelsea Manning was also on the list.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What shocked me a bit was finding out today is that Spicer is a fellow at Harvard. Seriously? Seriously!

"Fellow" in this context doesn't mean much. It means he is going to lead a non-credit study group or something this semester. A whole bunch of C-list political hacks have made the list. Until the press found out, Chelsea Manning was also on the list.
As near as we can tell it wasn't "the press" that was the problem but objections from various ex-CIA officials associated with the same Harvard program. These include torture advocate Mike Morell and Mike Pompeo, who certainly has the high ground to complain about people who pass information to Wikileaks. [Roll Eyes]

Spicer is mostly known as a bald-faced liar who's more notorious than others because he was the public face of a blatantly truth-averse administration. His rehabilitation as a punchline bothers me a lot less than the rehabilitation of people like Mike Morell.

At the very least this should put to rest the idea that elite Ivy League schools are liberal bastions where conservatives have to keep their heads low, though needless to say it probably won't.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Any thoughts, comments, reactions etc. from across the pond on the Lord of Fire and Fury's address to the UN?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41324970

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I think when a natl leader speaks to the intl community the citizens of that nation should be allowed to tweet their own commentary to appear simultaneously on a screen behind the speaker. Today you would have seen 65 million eye rolls, face palms, head bangs and the words "we know! We're doing everything we can! Bear with us please! Your prayers are appreciated"

[ 19. September 2017, 19:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I think Trump showed great restraint: I was fully expecting him to take off his shoe and pound the podium with it. One of Trump's heroes did something like that.

And, of course, the saving grace of the speech is that it came out of Trump's mouth and, so, is presumptively a lie. The odds favor that. Particularly the parts of the speech that included his favorite phrase ("Believe me") which always comes immediately after he has made a proposition that no intelligent person should ever believe.

From the BBC:
quote:
According to Reuters news agency, when Mr Trump made his remarks about destroying North Korea, one man in the audience covered his face with his hands...
Does Reuters not know Rex Tillerson when they see him? [Devil]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
From the BBC:
quote:
According to Reuters news agency, when Mr Trump made his remarks about destroying North Korea, one man in the audience covered his face with his hands...
Does Reuters not know Rex Tillerson when they see him? [Devil]
For an offhand joke, I was closer than I thought. It was actually Chief of Staff John Kelly!
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
I'm sure Kim and I are not the only people who know that the only way any country can protect its sovereignty from the USA, PRC or Russia is to have a nuke. All Trump accomplished with his gumflaps was give North Korea and Iran more good reasons to have a nuclear program.

Oh, and the speech was crap. Write-by-numbers crap: "Things are bad, but they could be good. They could be good, but bad stuff is happening. America great. World mean to America. America tough. World be nice to America or else." Childish insults. "Loser". "Rocket Man". Who writes this shit?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I figure the bits that sound like quotes from himself ("Rocketman"*, "loser terrorists", etc.) are ones he either insisted on or adlibbed. (And saying "the Brits", when he used the formal/proper names of other countries?)

*Thought: Perhaps we could nudge Pres. Kim into playing nicely if we make him listen to William Shatner's long-ago recording of "Rocket Man" non-stop? It's truly awful.
[Eek!]

[ 20. September 2017, 03:21: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
That came up on my facefacts feed yesterday. I didn't turn the sound on [Smile]

On the meme thing, that's Trump playing to his base. It helps him with 'his people' if decent people criticise him doing it. For what it's worth, I don't find the meme particularly offensive, although it is open to an anti-women reading. I do find the President of the United States retweeting it worrying, or I would if he hadn't done stuff like this many times before. Sad. How long has it been? I thought this is what superpacs are for - disseminating unsavory material that might damage your reputation.

Its the same with rocket man. It's OK as an off-the-cuff remark, but in a speech to the UN it is just inappropriate, to say nothing of using that platform to threaten to destroy another member state. I suppose that has been done before, but I don't think an American President has done it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Another thing about the speech that bothered me:

ISTM that T was, at the very least, prepping everyone for small wars all over the place--and, possibly, WWIII.

[Paranoid] [Votive]


And then there are his comments on socialism, when there are friendly socialist countries (Scandinavia) right there. Which were mostly met with dead silence.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
From the BBC:
quote:

According to Reuters news agency, when Mr Trump made his remarks about destroying North Korea, one man in the audience covered his face with his hands...

Does Reuters not know Rex Tillerson when they see him? [Devil]
For an offhand joke, I was closer than I thought. It was actually Chief of Staff John Kelly!
Obviously. If Rex Tillerson cared about diplomatic solutions to current crises the U.S. would actually have an Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm sure Kim and I are not the only people who know that the only way any country can protect its sovereignty from the USA, PRC or Russia is to have a nuke. All Trump accomplished with his gumflaps was give North Korea and Iran more good reasons to have a nuclear program.

Essentially, but it goes a bit further than that. As near as anyone can tell, Iran has scrupulously honored the terms of the JCPOA. An American withdrawal from this multi-party agreement would tell everyone else in the world that there's no point in negotiating with the United States since the U.S. won't feel bound by any agreement reached. In the immediate term it's a signal to North Korea that the U.S. is not a trustworthy counterparty to negotiate with.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Oh, and the speech was crap. Write-by-numbers crap: "Things are bad, but they could be good. They could be good, but bad stuff is happening. America great. World mean to America. America tough. World be nice to America or else." Childish insults. "Loser". "Rocket Man". Who writes this shit?

Most likely Stephen Miller. I suspect Trump was given a speech prepared jointly by various agencies, which he then handed over to Miller with the instructions "MAGA it up!".
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
By my count, the U.S. has had eleven presidents in a row before Trump who faced crises and did not actually use any nuclear bombs to fight a war. (I wonder if Trump could name all eleven, in order.)

Do we have any official reaction yet from South Korea (or Japan, or China, or Russia) about Trump's overt threat to make war on their neighbor?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
(I wonder if Trump could name all eleven, in order.)

Obama, Bush, Hillary, Not Trump, Reagan, Not Trump, Not Trump, Not Trump and Lincoln, Jackson and Washington.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

Do we have any official reaction yet from South Korea (or Japan, or China, or Russia) about Trump's overt threat to make war on their neighbor?

I recognize that TDS is endemic on the ship, but could you link to that "overt threat to make war" for me? I missed it.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:


Do we have any official reaction yet from South Korea (or Japan, or China, or Russia) about Trump's overt threat to make war on their neighbor?

Shuddering? Hiding under the bed? Stockpiling duct tape and plastic sheeting? Booking a flight to some remote location?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

Do we have any official reaction yet from South Korea (or Japan, or China, or Russia) about Trump's overt threat to make war on their neighbor?

I recognize that TDS is endemic on the ship, but could you link to that "overt threat to make war" for me? I missed it.
I would say threatening to
"totally destroy North Korea" qualifies.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From Conan O'Brian: "The wife of Donald Trump's ethics advisor was caught having sex in a car with a prison inmate. Can you believe that? Donald Trump has an ethics advisor!"(True! Reported in the Miami Herald.)
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Can any shipmate explain how The Big T could 'totally destroy' North Korea without also obliterating his notional ally, South Korea?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Nope!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Can any shipmate explain how The Big T could 'totally destroy' North Korea without also obliterating his notional ally, South Korea?

There is supposed to be some secret plan that would enable an attack on NK, while preventing NK from then attacking SK. Whether this plan is viable or fantasy, is unknown,but it sounds like a huge gamble.

One problem is, that Trump is crying wolf. He keeps using very violent language, so does he then back it up, and risk all-out war in Korea? Surely, he's not that crazy.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Can any shipmate explain how The Big T could 'totally destroy' North Korea without also obliterating his notional ally, South Korea?

Making sure South Korea is not obliterated is something Trump neither promised nor mentioned. In fact the phrase "South Korea" appears nowhere in the (unofficial) transcript of the speech.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

Do we have any official reaction yet from South Korea (or Japan, or China, or Russia) about Trump's overt threat to make war on their neighbor?

I recognize that TDS is endemic on the ship, but could you link to that "overt threat to make war" for me? I missed it.
I would say threatening to
"totally destroy North Korea" qualifies.

Ahh, I see it now. All I needed to do was isolate 4 words from the context of the 30 word sentence in which they were uttered and voila! Overt threat to make war!

Thanks!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Presumably this is the sentence referred to:

"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

Yes, the threat is qualified, but it's a threat nonetheless.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Followed by "Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime", making the threat that much more explicit (and possibly violating Elton John's copyright).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Not that The Orange Pharaoh would worry too much about upsetting Elton John, given that EJ is one of those Horrible Gayz (and has a much better hair-do...).

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Sometimes I think they're deliberately trolling the world.

September 19, 2017: Donald Trump addresses the United Nations and threatens to exterminate 25 million people unless his demands are met.

September 20, 2017: Melania Trump condemns bullying in United Nations speech.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
September 20, 2017: Melania Trump condemns bullying in United Nations speech.

[tangent] I know her clothing is irrelevant, but she was supposedly wearing a $3,000 dress -- it looks as if someone blew a YUGE bubble of bubble gum, especially when she's standing behind the podium. [/tangent]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
One can only imagine the pillow talk at the trumpy house.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Vicente Fox running for USA president in 2020 (former president of Mexico). A youtube worth sharing. Profane but less than the person he's mocking. "Always ask before grabbing a pussy".
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sometimes I think they're deliberately trolling the world.

September 19, 2017: Donald Trump addresses the United Nations and threatens to exterminate 25 million people unless his demands are met.

September 20, 2017: Melania Trump condemns bullying in United Nations speech.

Actually, I think maybe Melania is finding her public voice.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Vicente Fox running for USA president in 2020 (former president of Mexico). A youtube worth sharing. Profane but less than the person he's mocking. "Always ask before grabbing a pussy".

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Actually, I think maybe Melania is finding her public voice.

You mean, as opposed to Michelle Obama's?
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Vicente Fox running for USA president in 2020 (former president of Mexico). A youtube worth sharing. Profane but less than the person he's mocking. "Always ask before grabbing a pussy".

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
Wot Pigwidgeon sez. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Can any shipmate explain how The Big T could 'totally destroy' North Korea without also obliterating his notional ally, South Korea?

There is supposed to be some secret plan that would enable an attack on NK, while preventing NK from then attacking SK. Whether this plan is viable or fantasy, is unknown,but it sounds like a huge gamble.

One problem is, that Trump is crying wolf. He keeps using very violent language, so does he then back it up, and risk all-out war in Korea? Surely, he's not that crazy.

Where you’re going wrong is in assuming that El Presidente thinks. I think he simply cannot understand why what he’s doing is so dangerous. Before his election he reportedly asked more than once, “Why can’t we use nukes?”

Meet a very defective human being, ladies and gentlemen.

This is a man with a highly limited imagination and no capacity whatsoever for empathy. He is just incapable of grasping the stakes involved. He has no apparatus for understanding the human suffering he would unleash, and if he did, he probably wouldn’t care. What matters is that America (U-S-A! U-S-A!) made the biggest kaboom evaaaaar (incidentally, this from a man who actually in real life genuinely though the size of his appendages was an appropriate topic for a presidential debate) and yeah a few people got obliterated but they were only yellow foreign people so what's the big deal already?

Also, as a professional bullshitter, I don’t think he’s prepared for the idea that his words have consequences. He says them, he forgets about them. What’s the big deal?

All of this is why in a nutshell he is not a fit and proper person to be President of the United States of America.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
He seems determined to start a war with someone, anyone, be it North Korea or Iran (but not Russia or China,it seems for the moment). Is he looking for a 'Falklands effect'?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Question: Does The Donald actually know where North Korea is? Could he find it on a map or globe?

From his comments I get the impression he thinks PRK is an island which he can "destroy" without any collateral damage.

Deeply worrying.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
This just in – North Korea (North! Korea!) is sounding reasonable compared to Donald Trump. That’s right. The biggest basket case in the planet is apparently writing off all his bloviating as a “barking dog”.

I particularly like the comment from Kim Jong Un’s spokesman that he “feels sorry for [Trump’s] aides”.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
You couldn't make it up, could you... nobody would believe it.

Still, we mustn't laugh too loudly - tomorrow our own Glorious Leader is due to make that big important speech in Florence... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
More surreal.

Trump had lunch with African leaders. He talked of an imaginary country called 'Nambia' (a mix perhaps between Zambia and Namibia)and said this: "Africa has tremendous business potential. I have so many friends going to your countries trying to get rich."

Somewhere in the tiny country of Africa
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
He's thick as a plank [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
As Mary Louise has indicated, Trump would fail Grade 8 geography. What is shocking is not just the depth of ignorance, but also how spectacularly tone deaf Trump is. Does no one check his copy? I'm all for commercial development of Africa, for the benefit of Africans, but does it get more arrogantly neo-colonialist than "Azania* will make my friends rich!"

*Reference to Evelyn Waugh
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sometimes I think they're deliberately trolling the world.

September 19, 2017: Donald Trump addresses the United Nations and threatens to exterminate 25 million people unless his demands are met.

September 20, 2017: Melania Trump condemns bullying in United Nations speech.

Actually, I think maybe Melania is finding her public voice.
But in a uniquely obtuse way. But it's not "finding"-- this exact scenario has been repeated several times-- both with Melania and with Ivanka.

That seems to be the Trump pattern. The Trump boys (because they certainly aren't men) verbalize in short, unfiltered, sometimes incomprehensible but never guarded, frequently offensive and almost always rash, words. The Trump women say very little publicly, but when they do it frequently seems at odds with what the men have said, but never explicitly so. Same with their facial expressions-- whatever the boys are feeling is written on their faces (frequently anger, petulance of bewilderment)-- the women, whether thru botox or deliberate choice, are coolly expressionless, giving away none of whatever they are thinking or feeling.

Which always leaves me wondering about both Ivanka and Melania when they come out with these cryptic, obtuse utterings so at odds with Donald's statements: are they just so isolated and unreflective (as Ivanka's recent book would suggest) that they just don't recognize the disconnect? Are these statements/tweets/speeches written by someone else, possibly even for some other occasion, either through hire or thru creative "borrowing" (e.g. past use of Michelle Obama's work), and they're just unreflectively reading lines as an actress would? Or are these statements really "silent screams"-- cries for help, subversive red flags being raised by women held hostage by their fear/prenups and unable to speak more directly/explicitly?

Definitely the Trump women are far more intriguing than the boys.
 
Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :
 
Yes, what Pangolin Guerre said.

I wonder though if he was thinking about people like his sons being allowed to commercialise lucrative canned slaughter safaris in Zimbabwe.

Please don't click on the link if you are distressed by seeing beautiful and endangered wild animals needlessly killed by trophy-hunting Trumps.

Look, Daddy!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

From his comments I get the impression he thinks PRK is an island which he can "destroy" without any collateral damage.

Honestly, without snark and outside of hostility, he doesn't think things that far through.
The shallowest of comments here represent a much greater thought process than Trump evinces on most of his comments.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

From his comments I get the impression he thinks PRK is an island which he can "destroy" without any collateral damage.

Honestly, without snark and outside of hostility, he doesn't think things that far through.
The shallowest of comments here represent a much greater thought process than Trump evinces on most of his comments.

This.

His interests are immediate, and personal. He wants to appear tough and strong, so he makes a loud, bullying threat-- and unfortunately we've given him the weaponry to make and act upon loud, bullying threats. There is no grand plan, there is no great strategy, to this. There is just the immediate personal gratification of feeling like the Biggest Dog with the Loudest Bark on the block.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
So far, the USA's allies seem to be saying that Iran is compliant, so what gives? I reckon they know something Trump doesn't want to hear.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
So far, the USA's allies seem to be saying that Iran is compliant, so what gives? I reckon they know something Trump doesn't want to hear.

It doesn't fit the conservative narrative. Muslims are the boogie man and Iran is a Muslim nation without direct financial ties to the US.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
/slight tangent/

The poor lass can't help her name, but I always read Melania as Melancholia or Melanoma.

(BTW, was she, in fact, named after a country in Africa? [Devil] ).

IJ
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
So far, the USA's allies seem to be saying that Iran is compliant, so what gives? I reckon they know something Trump doesn't want to hear.

It doesn't fit the conservative narrative. Muslims are the boogie man and Iran is a Muslim nation without direct financial ties to the US.
And the deal was put in place under Obama. That is enough for Trump to want to torpedo it, no matter what.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The London Times reports that the US anti-missile weapons are not, in fact, 100% effective under operational conditions against long- or intermediate-range rockets.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Following that bit of information, is there any hope that Trump's Nuclear Football is just a dummy, connected only to a computer game?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There's a graphic novel in here somewhere. Rocket Man versus Tiny Fingers: The Stupidest Apocalypse Ever.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a graphic novel in here somewhere. Rocket Man versus Tiny Fingers: The Stupidest Apocalypse Ever.

... with the worst hair.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
BTW, T periodically makes noises about stopping White House press briefings altogether, and sending out memos instead.

Not much of a threat. Now that the WH has no compulsion to avoid ever the appearance of falsehood they're an exercise in irrelevant political theater. We're u a cash-strapped editor or news director I wouldn't spend a dime covering them. Maybe pick up a free intern or two from a high school journalism class to catch a pic on their cell phone in case Sarah or someone does something really amazing like turn into a bat and fly out the window. Otherwise I'd Devote all my resources to old school investigative journalism
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Eirenist:
quote:
The London Times reports that the US anti-missile weapons are not, in fact, 100% effective under operational conditions against long- or intermediate-range rockets.
According to Murphy's Law, there's no such thing as an anti-missile weapon that's 100% effective. Anyone who thinks there is, is fooling themselves. Or standing for re-election.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Meanwhile, speaking of ranges, Kim Wrong-Trim has (accurately, perhaps?) described The Barking Dog as 'deranged':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41356836

Yes, I know, pot - kettle, kettle - pot...

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I listened to Manu Macron’s speech to the UN last night. Don’t know how much coverage it’s been getting in the English-speaking world. (He made the speech in French, which feels like a political decision to me. He would have been more than capable of delivering it in English had he wanted to. These days the President of France speaks considerably better English than the President of the United States [Snigger] .)

Anyway, Macron likes international aid (albeit less than people at home have been saying France should contribute, but that’s another story), especially health and education projects and improving the situation of women. He believes that climate change is a thing, and Something Must be Done and the Paris accords must be upheld. He wants the nuclear proliferation agreements with Iran to hold and categorically refuses any kind of escalation of the situation with North Korea. Now I don’t mean to brag but can I mention how I am feeling quite happy to be a resident of a (mostly) sane country?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
<wonders if she is really too old to emigrate to a sane country>
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, France is not too far away, and is indeed IMNSHO a sane and (mostly) civilised country, but you'd better get a move on, as Nibiru arrives tomorrow...

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Good News! The Donald has finally got around to thinking about Africa, addressing a meeting of African heads of state in New York.

Bad News! The Donald has invented a new country - Nambia. No one was sure whether he meant Gambia, Zambia or Namibia. White House officials later confirmed he meant Namibia.

President Hage Geingob of Namibia was present when The Donald made the latest gaffe <awkward> [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Good News! The Donald has finally got around to thinking about Africa, addressing a meeting of African heads of state in New York.

Bad News! The Donald has invented a new country - Nambia. No one was sure whether he meant Gambia, Zambia or Namibia. White House officials later confirmed he meant Namibia.

President Hage Geingob of Namibia was present when The Donald made the latest gaffe <awkward> [Ultra confused]

Ignoring the fact that this "gaffe" was already covered up-thread, my first thought was maybe Nambia was one of the 57 states Barry visited during his campaign...
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
If we start comparing mistakes, Trump wins for his speeches before he was elected and continues his considerable lead nearly every time he opens his mouth.

Meaning Trump says stupid things more often. I know, this should be obvious, but...

[ 22. September 2017, 17:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If we start comparing mistakes, Trump wins for his speeches before he was elected and continues his considerable lead nearly every time he opens his mouth.

Meaning Trump says stupid things more often. I know, this should be obvious, but...

A fair argument can be made that Barry deserves a writer's credit on all of Donald's gaffes, as it was his leadership and policy priorities that led to the decimation of his party and ultimately, the election of Trump.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If we start comparing mistakes, Trump wins for his speeches before he was elected and continues his considerable lead nearly every time he opens his mouth.

Meaning Trump says stupid things more often. I know, this should be obvious, but...

A fair argument can be made that Barry deserves a writer's credit on all of Donald's gaffes, as it was his leadership and policy priorities that led to the decimation of his party and ultimately, the election of Trump.
Right. [Roll Eyes] If you are going to write farce, there is no point in engaging you.
Wait, I apologise, that is not accurate. There was no point in engaging your posts in the first place.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Now, now. Perhaps he is trying to say what Ta-Nehisi Coates
says more cogently in the Atlantic. Thus:

"Replacing Obama is not enough—Trump has made the negation of Obama’s legacy the foundation of his own. And this too is whiteness. “Race is an idea, not a fact,” the historian Nell Irvin Painter has written, and essential to the construct of a “white race” is the idea of not being a nigger. Before Barack Obama, niggers could be manufactured out of Sister Souljahs, Willie Hortons, and Dusky Sallys. But Donald Trump arrived in the wake of something more potent—an entire nigger presidency with nigger health care, nigger climate accords, and nigger justice reform, all of which could be targeted for destruction or redemption, thus reifying the idea of being white. Trump truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president. And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become president. He must be called by his rightful honorific—America’s first white president."
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But he's ORANGE!!

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
A fair argument can be made that Barry deserves a writer's credit on all of Donald's gaffes, as it was his leadership and policy priorities that led to the decimation of his party and ultimately, the election of Trump.

Except that Obama's policies etc. were a reaction to the blunders of George W. Bush. Although, to be fair to GWB, he was reacting to the sheer debacle of the Clinton years. And those years were a reaction to the incompetence of....oh, let's just cut to the chase. It is all George Washington's fault.

Trump's Blunderstorm at the UN is a rookie mistake. He is approaching things like a businessman rather than a politician. In business, it makes sense to talk tough and strong and figure that you can then get concessions from the other party who don't want to risk it. But international politics does not work like that. Rather, Kimmie Jo can do exactly what he has done and point to the bluster and say "See! This justifies what I have been doing. He is threatening North Korea's interest and, because I follow a 'North Korea First' policy (which Trump endorses--every nation should look out for their own self interest), what I am doing is right and proper." In short, Trump has validated Kimmie Jo.

Traditionally, the way it should be played is that the president is measured and restrained in comments, while letting the diplomatic corps talk tough. This allows the nation to gain good will from other nations ("See how the president is trying to resolve things fairly!") while the diplomatic corps can get concessions with threats of escalation that are more realistic and practical than "we will crush you". The way Trump has done it, the other nations pull away from the US ("See how unrealistic the president is! That is not a workable approach!") and the diplomatic corps has little leverage to work with.

There is a reason Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick." It is a time-tested approach that works.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
A fair argument can be made that Barry deserves a writer's credit on all of Donald's gaffes, as it was his leadership and policy priorities that led to the decimation of his party and ultimately, the election of Trump.

Except that Obama's policies
tut, tut, tut, Hedgehog. Everything is Obama's fault.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
You George Washington Apologists give me a pain.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
A fair argument can be made that Barry deserves a writer's credit on all of Donald's gaffes, as it was his leadership and policy priorities that led to the decimation of his party and ultimately, the election of Trump.

Except that Obama's policies
tut, tut, tut, Hedgehog. Everything is Obama's fault.
Well, not everything but he sucked...

Just like 9/11 wasn't GWB's fault, the current state of affairs didn't just appear since the election of Trump, domestic or international...
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The check-engine light went on in my car when Obama was inaugurated, and no one has been able to fix it. How could anyone not agree that it's his fault?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I was watching a rather left wing news channel (The Young Turks) that YouTube recommended, and they made mention of a smaller round of tax cuts (700 mill?), as opposed to the larger ones to come.

I didn't really follow... Are there tax cuts linked to the repeal of the ACA, or it is this another bill? They were mentioning Republican donors are none too happy currently, nor are those of Democrats to the right, as they have not got what they were "promised". If true, it seems pretty blatant votes for favours. But then again companies donate to parties here, and I'm sure it's not out of love for democracy.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
So when the DPRNK aitch bomb goes off flawlessly exoatmospherically with no fallout after passing harmlessly over Japan ... will the playground language stop?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sorry, DPRK.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes. One of the great semi-secrets of the health care reform drive is that it has to happen this year, I think within the next month or so. If it doesn't, then it will actually have to make sense financially. (At some point in the past Congress passed itself a get-out-of-jail-free card about legislation adding up financially, but it expires soon.)
The key thing for them is to cut Medicare and Medicaid as hard as possible. They need to scrape vast sums out of these programs, which can then be applied to a tax cut for billionaires. No health care legislation, no tax cut. And then the billionaires, they'll be so sad!
This is why the Koch brothers (billionaires) are so set on it.
So, to summarize: it has to be done, and it has to be done soon. Otherwise some deserving people will no longer be able to afford that third yacht.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The most powerful man in the world thinks it is a smart move to publicly insult a touchy paranoid dictator with nuclear weapons. We should all start praying now, if we aren't already.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
In response to Brenda's quote about race, I have a fantasy where I go up to a fascist rally and ask the fascists their surnames. If there are any that sound southern European, I denounce them to the assembled fascists on the grounds that they are not sufficiently white. When they shout me down, I accuse them of being liberal infiltrators. In my dream, I don't get my head bashed in.

White racism in Australia (circa 1950 - 1980?) used to target anyone whose antecedents didn't come from the British Isles, but if you had a British accent of some sort, then you were also hated a bit on the grounds that you were a whinging pom and a likely player of wogball (the round ball game). That meant that Greeks, Italians, Dutch, Germans etc were openly despised. The White Australia Policy kept most other people out a policy that formally ended in the 1970's.

These days, if you look "white" the racist right will take you, no matter what your surname. The East Asians copped it big time in the 1990's, but now the Muslims are getting it, which means anybody brown regardless of their faith I reckon. Religious hatred has a proud history in Australia, with Catholic/Protestant sectarianism rampant for generations.

So much for our vaunted egalitarian mateship.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Dear God. And to think that Uklander people actually want (or perhaps, more accurately) wanted to emigrate to Oz...

...OTOH, maybe it is the right place for Little Uklanders, on account of being A Long Way from that horrid Europe, though I certainly wouldn't wish them on you Ozzies.

@Eirenist - O, we are praying very hard, believe you me. What with The Barking Dog, and Kim Wrong-Trim, who needs Nibiru?

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The most powerful man in the world thinks it is a smart move to publicly insult a touchy paranoid dictator with nuclear weapons. We should all start praying now, if we aren't already.

For what?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
For what?

The end to come swiftly?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
What is prophecy?

Eagles...did not love goblins...they swooped on them and drove them shrieking back to their caves.
-JRR Tolkien, The Hobbit, published 80 years ago.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, yes - but the end of what...or of whom ?

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Bishop's Finger, I believe that New Zealand rather than Oz is where good UKlanders want to go, on account of it being (according to my Kiwi son-in-law) stuck in the '70s. If he is misleading me, I apologise to any offended Kiwis.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, now I come to think of it, others have said that Kiwiland is like Ukland was years ago, only better...

IJ
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
They want to go there when they die, perhaps?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks Brenda. Much appreciated.

And now I read he is picking fights with football players...will it play well in any demographic?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Thanks Brenda. Much appreciated.

And now I read he is picking fights with football players...will it play well in any demographic?

Yep. They understand he's picking a fight with black football players and BLM. Plus he screamed 'You're fired!'. His supporters loved it.

And what's with the candy-cane tie? It's not even October yet.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Please explain Trump's row with the NFL.

And why does kneeling for the national anthem cause him such anger? Is this war of words and actions all about racism or something else?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Can anyone explain what goes on inside what passes for The Barking Dog's mind?

[Confused]

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Can anyone explain what goes on inside what passes for The Barking Dog's mind?

[Confused]

IJ

me mine me mine me mine me mine me mine nice ass me mine me mine me mine me mine screw you arsehole me mine me mine me mine oh she likes me me mine me mine me mine me mine .....
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Isn't he just putting down uppity niggers?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
@quetzalcoatl - alas, yes, I suspect you're right.

@simontoad - you left out 'pussy'...

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

@simontoad - you left out 'pussy'...

...and "covfefe."
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Please explain Trump's row with the NFL.

And why does kneeling for the national anthem cause him such anger? Is this war of words and actions all about racism or something else?

It's a combo of racism and flag fetishism-- both of which play well with his base.

The reality is, I'm hard pressed to think of a more respectful, more peaceful, more appropriate and yes, patriotic, form of protest than to "take a knee".
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's a combo of racism and flag fetishism

It's what happens when you turn patriotism into a religion, as has been happening in some quarters of the US for quite a while now. Suddenly things like The Flag become your icons, The President becomes your High Priest, the police and armed forces become Defenders Of The Faith (and/or martyrs) and The Constitution becomes Holy Writ.

It follows that any form of disrespect - real or perceived - to any of those things becomes blasphemy. And blasphemy must be eradicated.........
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
That's what my (non-American) wife thought too, seeing the pictures.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Is there no end to the Barking Dog's Belligerent Bellyaching? What a total and utter disaster the wretched man is...

Where's Nibiru, just when you need It?

BTW, if Worship Of The Flag is the new religion of America, where do the swivel-eyed fundamentalist right-wing loons stand on the issue? Do they worship The Flag as well as their tiny-minded, evil, little god?

IJ
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Please explain Trump's row with the NFL.

One thread, (at least according to the guardian), it seems that one player said they weren't fussed about going to the whitehouse... and somehow it escalated so the whole team didn't want to go/weren't invited because they weren't invited/didn't want to go.

Which partly falls on who has a duty to follow convention. I'm pretty sure it's one where the 'obvious truths' would flip for both sides were it 9 years ago. So I'm going to be a bit cautious of following my instincts.

That said, it's easier to think of counter-motivational actions for Donald to have said or done in the first place than average presidents. (whereas I don't know anything about the players other relationships)

And I'm sure most of the other presidents (anywhere and anywhen) would have had a bit more business style acumen and made it a boring story.


PS I don't think they worship the flag as well as their God.

[ 24. September 2017, 19:12: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Anyway, this is yet another example of something that would never have happened under Obama. (Or Clinton.) I thought LeBron James' tweet was the best: "Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up!"
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:


BTW, if Worship Of The Flag is the new religion of America, where do the swivel-eyed fundamentalist right-wing loons stand on the issue? Do they worship The Flag as well as their tiny-minded, evil, little god?

IJ

Oh yes indeed they do, although to be fair they've done so for decades-- Donald is just playing to a pre-existing cult. One 4th of July Sunday years ago I was guest preaching and counted 30 some flags decorating the sanctuary
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Anyway, this is yet another example of something that would never have happened under Obama. (Or Clinton.) I thought LeBron James' tweet was the best: "Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up!"

You skipped the part where he addressed the President as "u bum." [Killing me]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Please explain Trump's row with the NFL.

And why does kneeling for the national anthem cause him such anger? Is this war of words and actions all about racism or something else?

It's a combo of racism and flag fetishism-- both of which play well with his base.

The reality is, I'm hard pressed to think of a more respectful, more peaceful, more appropriate and yes, patriotic, form of protest than to "take a knee".

I couldn't agree more about 'taking the knee'. My wife read me a list of ways in which you can disrespect the US flag, including draping it around an object or your body.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
There is also the fact that some 70% of NFL players are African-American, and (yes, I know many get paid vast sums of money, but):

a. Football is one of the not-numerous-enough routes upward for disadvantaged African-Americans in this society, and

b. Football is once again putting black lives at serious risk (as in maiming injuries, CTE, etc.) for the entertainment of largely white, and/or more affluent crowds (with ticket prices at around $150 a pop).
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I should think things about Confederate monuments and Confed flags might be disrespectful of the American flag. It does seems complicated when it's flags which are debated and neoNazis aren't.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
There is also the fact that some 70% of NFL players are African-American, and (yes, I know many get paid vast sums of money, but):
...

It isn't enough to protect them from racist policing. Note that the behaviour which the police said was suspicious was what exactly what everyone is advised to do in an active shooter situation: run, hide, and only as a last resort, fight.

And does Donald Trump think the linked arms are a counter-protest to the knee?
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Bishop's Finger, I believe that New Zealand rather than Oz is where good UKlanders want to go, on account of it being (according to my Kiwi son-in-law) stuck in the '70s. If he is misleading me, I apologise to any offended Kiwis.

Except that if North Korea's crazy man does choose to test a bomb in the Pacific, France sounds safer.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Steady. Exoatmospherically over it. A quarter of the planet away from NZ. Chill.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
According to the BBC, North Korea reckons that war has already been declared:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41391978

Perhaps we're going to regret the non-appearance of Nibiru, after all.

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
How is Weiner generally viewed, if there is a consensus, by Democrats/those on the left? He had slipped my mind until I read about his going to jail.

Is he seen as someone who contributed to the loss? He was a high-flyer at one point, wasn't he?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
This is awesome.

"Donald Trump's Childhood Home Is on Airbnb — and Oxfam Just Rented It For Refugees" (PopSugar).

[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

I don't remember specifics from back then--except that some (conservative) people thought he tainted Hillary, because his wife is very close to her, and IIRC an integral part of the campaign.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
GK, must Oxfam really subject those poor people to Trump paraphernalia?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ian--

I don't remember specifics from back then--except that some (conservative) people thought he tainted Hillary, because his wife is very close to her, and IIRC an integral part of the campaign.

Anyone who thought Weiner was a reason not to vote for Clinton wasn't going to vote for her anyway.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
How is Weiner generally viewed, if there is a consensus, by Democrats/those on the left? He had slipped my mind until I read about his going to jail.

Is he seen as someone who contributed to the loss? He was a high-flyer at one point, wasn't he?

More like a "medium-flyer". He was a U.S. Congressman from New York's 9th Congressional district. (That's Brooklyn, to save you the trouble of Googling it.) He was essentially a reliable back-bencher from a safe district, so he was one of the elite insofar as he was one of the 435 people in the lower house of the U.S. Congress, but he wasn't notable for anything else, at least in terms of legislation and committee assignments. He obviously achieved notoriety in other ways, though.

Weiner "contributed" to Hillary Clinton's loss in that it was his laptop that gave James Comey an excuse to push the "Hillary bad e-mails! [Mad] Grr!" story back onto the media center stage ten days before the election, using his authority as FBI director to make it seem really serious. Comey eventually issued an "oops, never mind" letter, but by then the damage was done.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ian--

I don't remember specifics from back then--except that some (conservative) people thought he tainted Hillary, because his wife is very close to her, and IIRC an integral part of the campaign.

Anyone who thought Weiner was a reason not to vote for Clinton wasn't going to vote for her anyway.
Indeed. The objections from most conservatives who claimed to be bothered by the connection were more along the lines of Huma Abedin (Weiner's wife) being a secret Islamic sleeper agent passing along Hillary's marching orders from her hidden masters in the Muslim Brotherhood. Seriously. There are American voters who thought this.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
My wife read me a list of ways in which you can disrespect the US flag, including draping it around an object or your body.

Someone should tell this lot, before Trump finds out about them...
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O, I don't know. Melancholia would look rather fetching in one of them, I think.

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thank you all for the Weiner information.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
*snigger*
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
[Razz]


So the health bill has been pulled. Do you think they'll give it another go at any point?

Tax reform next...do you think they're on firmer ground there?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
They keep on saying they will. They've promised to Repeal Obamacare for so many years that the base (the rabid Trumpistas) will hold them to it. But it surely must have sunk in by now that nobody else likes the idea. It's a pity that their pride and folly put so many innocent people in danger. If they were only playing Russian roulette by themselves nobody much would care.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

So the health bill has been pulled. Do you think they'll give it another go at any point?

According to The Los Angeles Times (as well as other sources, but this was the first hit on Google)
quote:
The Senate is relying on special budget rules that would allow passage of the healthcare bill with a simple majority, bypassing the threat of a filibuster by opponents.

So-called budget reconciliation provides a potentially powerful strategic advantage for Republicans. They hold a slim 52-seat majority and would almost certainly be unable to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster by Democrats or even Republican opponents of the bill. Using the budget process, Republicans need only 50 votes, assuming Vice President Mike Pence casts the tie-breaking vote.

But budget rules, which need to be approved each year, are set to expire on Sept. 30, at the end of fiscal 2017.


 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A free article describing the Obamacare repeal effort as essentially immortal.

On the up side, even a few years of Obamacare has made it plain that most Americans really kind of like having health insurance. Every year that passes will increase that feeling.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It does seem that even most Republicans blanch at taking access to essential medical care away from people, even when they opposed giving them it in the first place.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A free article describing the Obamacare repeal effort as essentially immortal.

On the up side, even a few years of Obamacare has made it plain that most Americans really kind of like having health insurance. Every year that passes will increase that feeling.

Which will drive Trump maaaaaaad (madder).
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And more "fun":

"Tweeters Tear Into Donald Trump For 'Blaming' Puerto Rico Over Maria Devastation" (Yahoo).

The commenters on that article are not happy with T, either.

I saw a clip of him talking about PR. He felt the need to explain that "it's an island...an island...in the middle of the ocean", and looked like he was only vaguely familiar with the idea.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It does seem that even most Republicans blanch at taking access to essential medical care away from people, even when they opposed giving them it in the first place.

Really? From the vote counts in both the House and Senate that I've seen it seems like only a very few Republicans "blanch at taking access to essential medical care away from people". I know a lot of Republican blanch at accurately describing what they're doing as "taking access to essential medical care away from people", but most of them seem fine with actually doing it.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It does seem that even most Republicans blanch at taking access to essential medical care away from people, even when they opposed giving them it in the first place.

Really? From the vote counts in both the House and Senate that I've seen it seems like only a very few Republicans "blanch at taking access to essential medical care away from people". I know a lot of Republican blanch at accurately describing what they're doing as "taking access to essential medical care away from people", but most of them seem fine with actually doing it.
'kay; for "most" read "some, enough to prevent it"
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
The British spoof news site NewsThump has noticed Trump's difficulties in locating Puerto Rico on a map: see here

They've been having fun with the NFL story, too, although their main focus at the moment is the Ryanair scandal.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Grrrrr. [Mad] T is at it again.

"Donald Trump Refuses to Send More Aid to Puerto Rico, Citing Business Interests" (Yahoo).

That headline is slightly misleading.

We've got something called the Jones act, which says that shipping from one US port to another has to be done by American vessels. This was temporarily waived for Texas and Florida. But he doesn't want to do that for Puerto Rico.

AIUI, some members of Congress are working on a waiver. Sen. McCain, per that article, is furious that Puerto Rico is being treated this way. For a long time, he's fought to repeal the Jones act.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Grrrrr. [Mad] T is at it again.

"Donald Trump Refuses to Send More Aid to Puerto Rico, Citing Business Interests" (Yahoo).

That headline is slightly misleading.

We've got something called the Jones act, which says that shipping from one US port to another has to be done by American vessels. This was temporarily waived for Texas and Florida. But he doesn't want to do that for Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico is not the US gulf coast. It has less coastline than Texas and nothing comparable in the way of the deep water ports available across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Business interests include safety and logistics, among others.

Of course that won't prevent the pending puerile observation that the people of Puerto Rico are brown...


[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Just in, T-boy is waiving the Jones Act. It's probably too much to hope for, that some day he'll go for just as long, without water and power in a subtropical climate.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Puerto Rico is not the US gulf coast. It has less coastline than Texas and nothing comparable in the way of the deep water ports available across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Business interests include safety and logistics, among others.

Yeah so, logically and rationally, if that were the reason, why didn’t the Orange Administration just say so. If there are no foreign ships that can make port in PR safely and on time, why bring the Jones Act up?
quote:

Of course that won't prevent the pending puerile observation that the people of Puerto Rico are brown...


[Roll Eyes]

might be just because he thinks they are some sort of stealth immigrant.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Of course that won't prevent the pending puerile observation that the people of Puerto Rico are brown...


[Roll Eyes]

might be just because he thinks they are some sort of stealth immigrant. [/QB]
Honestly sometimes he just seems to be cruel for the sake of being cruel. No more motivation needed. I guess it makes him feel powerful
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Honestly sometimes he just seems to be cruel for the sake of being cruel. No more motivation needed. I guess it makes him feel powerful

]

I think there is a certain type of voter (often older/middle aged men) who almost seem to relish being cruel because they think it makes them hard headed realists.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

We've got something called the Jones act, which says that shipping from one US port to another has to be done by American vessels.

Which specifically, AIUI, means that, for example, a non-US ship in the Pacific cannot stop at Hawaii on the way to the US mainland, which means that goods from Asia destined for Hawaii are first shipped to California, and then back to Hawaii.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

We've got something called the Jones act, which says that shipping from one US port to another has to be done by American vessels.

Which specifically, AIUI, means that, for example, a non-US ship in the Pacific cannot stop at Hawaii on the way to the US mainland, which means that goods from Asia destined for Hawaii are first shipped to California, and then back to Hawaii.
Seriously?!! That is super-fucked up. Good thing living there is so cheap
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Which specifically, AIUI, means that, for example, a non-US ship in the Pacific cannot stop at Hawaii on the way to the US mainland, which means that goods from Asia destined for Hawaii are first shipped to California, and then back to Hawaii.

That's not strictly true, the act applies to shipping between US ports, so there would be no issue if all the cargo was being offloaded at Hawaii, however logistically things usually arrive from the west coast - and the jones act would apply there - and would specify a US manufactured and owned ship, flying under a US flag, crewed by US citizens or permanent residents. The combination of all these clauses drives the cost of shipping up

[ 28. September 2017, 15:45: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That's not strictly true, the act applies to shipping between US ports, so there would be no issue if all the cargo was being offloaded at Hawaii

And there's the rub - nobody from Asia is sending a whole ship just to Hawaii. It's not a big enough market. The rational thing is to send a ship, offload some goods in Hawaii, and continue on to one of the CA ports with the rest, but that makes the leg between HI and CA "shipping between US ports".
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
On to the next pea under the mattress now, it's being waived...
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
On to the next pea under the mattress now, it's being waived...

Someone living in Puerto Rico with no access to clean water, food, medical supplies, gasoline -- and no electricity -- I don't think would consider this outdated law to be a "pea under a mattress."
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
On to the next pea under the mattress now, it's being waived...

Someone living in Puerto Rico with no access to clean water, food, medical supplies, gasoline -- and no electricity -- I don't think would consider this outdated law to be a "pea under a mattress."
The pea I was referring to was the hypocritical, manufactured outrage at everything Trump does/doesn't do, says/doesn't say, is/isn't.

Similar to what we saw from the right for Barry, but no less tiresome...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
On to the next pea under the mattress now, it's being waived...

Someone living in Puerto Rico with no access to clean water, food, medical supplies, gasoline -- and no electricity -- I don't think would consider this outdated law to be a "pea under a mattress."
The pea I was referring to was the hypocritical, manufactured outrage at everything Trump does/doesn't do, says/doesn't say, is/isn't.

Similar to what we saw from the right for Barry, but no less tiresome...

I'm not sure what's hypocritical or manufactured about outrage over people being left to starve. Or how it's equivalent to a bunch of racist whining about birth certificates or pointless complaints about tan suits. Claiming that what kind of mustard Obama had on his hamburgers (seriously?) is just as unworthy of true outrage as the fact that millions of Americans lack the basic necessities to keep alive is pretty much the purest distillation I've come across (yet) of the toxic and reflexive bothsiderism prevalent in much of American politics today.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Flag idolatry isn't even limited to the fundamentalist churches. Try to remove the flag from the sanctuary of your typical Middle American mainline Protestant church, and watch people lose their minds.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
On to the next pea under the mattress now, it's being waived...

Someone living in Puerto Rico with no access to clean water, food, medical supplies, gasoline -- and no electricity -- I don't think would consider this outdated law to be a "pea under a mattress."
The pea I was referring to was the hypocritical, manufactured outrage at everything Trump does/doesn't do, says/doesn't say, is/isn't.

Similar to what we saw from the right for Barry, but no less tiresome...

I'm not sure what's hypocritical or manufactured about outrage over people being left to starve.
"First of all, we are very grateful for the administration. They have responded quickly.

The president has been very attentive to the situation, personally calling me several times. FEMA and the FEMA director have been here in Puerto Rico twice. As a matter of fact, they were here with us today, making sure that all the resources in FEMA were working in conjunction with the central government.

We have been working together. We have been getting results. The magnitude of this catastrophe is enormous. This is going to take a lot of help, a lot of collaboration."

-Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello

Left to starve? You should call the Governor and let him know. Maybe he's missed it.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The pea I was referring to was the hypocritical, manufactured outrage at everything Trump does/doesn't do, says/doesn't say, is/isn't.

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
"First of all, we are very grateful for the administration. They have responded quickly.

The president has been very attentive to the situation, personally calling me several times. FEMA and the FEMA director have been here in Puerto Rico twice. As a matter of fact, they were here with us today, making sure that all the resources in FEMA were working in conjunction with the central government.

We have been working together. We have been getting results. The magnitude of this catastrophe is enormous. This is going to take a lot of help, a lot of collaboration."

-Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello

Left to starve? You should call the Governor and let him know. Maybe he's missed it.

Is that the same Ricardo Rossello who was "hypocritical[ly] manufactur[ing] outrage" by petitioning for the lifting of the Jones Act? Luckily you're here to tell him he's whining about a "pea under the mattress". [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
On to the next pea under the mattress now, it's being waived...

Someone living in Puerto Rico with no access to clean water, food, medical supplies, gasoline -- and no electricity -- I don't think would consider this outdated law to be a "pea under a mattress."
The pea I was referring to was the hypocritical, manufactured outrage at everything Trump does/doesn't do, says/doesn't say, is/isn't.

Similar to what we saw from the right for Barry, but no less tiresome...

I'm not sure what's hypocritical or manufactured about outrage over people being left to starve.
"First of all, we are very grateful for the administration. They have responded quickly.

The president has been very attentive to the situation, personally calling me several times. FEMA and the FEMA director have been here in Puerto Rico twice. As a matter of fact, they were here with us today, making sure that all the resources in FEMA were working in conjunction with the central government.

We have been working together. We have been getting results. The magnitude of this catastrophe is enormous. This is going to take a lot of help, a lot of collaboration."

-Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello

Left to starve? You should call the Governor and let him know. Maybe he's missed it.

Desperate beggars are often very polite to the guy holding the purse strings. Were I in his wet and muddy shoes I'd probably be crawling up Trumps orange a@@ as well
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
romanlion--

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The pea I was referring to was the hypocritical, manufactured outrage at everything Trump does/doesn't do, says/doesn't say, is/isn't.

Similar to what we saw from the right for Barry, but no less tiresome...

The first is more like all the stacked mattresses being infested by gila monsters, rattle snakes, spontaneous combustion, Chernobyl, and random thugs--plus all sorts of vermin.

The second is the kind of argument and venom you frequently stated about Pres. Obama. And yes, that certainly was tiresome. (Your wording.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
romanlion--

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The pea I was referring to was the hypocritical, manufactured outrage at everything Trump does/doesn't do, says/doesn't say, is/isn't.

Similar to what we saw from the right for Barry, but no less tiresome...

The first is more like all the stacked mattresses being infested by gila monsters, rattle snakes, spontaneous combustion, Chernobyl, and random thugs--plus all sorts of vermin.

The second is the kind of argument and venom you frequently stated about Pres. Obama. And yes, that certainly was tiresome. (Your wording.)

There was no discernible difference. I'm sorry you can't see that.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It does seem that even most Republicans blanch at taking access to essential medical care away from people, even when they opposed giving them it in the first place.

Really? From the vote counts in both the House and Senate that I've seen it seems like only a very few Republicans "blanch at taking access to essential medical care away from people". I know a lot of Republican blanch at accurately describing what they're doing as "taking access to essential medical care away from people", but most of them seem fine with actually doing it.
'kay; for "most" read "some, enough to prevent it"
"Some, enough to prevent it" = 3, out of 52 senators. Back in May in the House, 20 Republicans voted against taking health care away from millions of people, and 217 voted for it. Not very much blanching at all.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The pea I was referring to was the hypocritical, manufactured outrage at everything Trump does/doesn't do, says/doesn't say, is/isn't.

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
"First of all, we are very grateful for the administration. They have responded quickly.

The president has been very attentive to the situation, personally calling me several times. FEMA and the FEMA director have been here in Puerto Rico twice. As a matter of fact, they were here with us today, making sure that all the resources in FEMA were working in conjunction with the central government.

We have been working together. We have been getting results. The magnitude of this catastrophe is enormous. This is going to take a lot of help, a lot of collaboration."

-Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello

Left to starve? You should call the Governor and let him know. Maybe he's missed it.

Is that the same Ricardo Rossello who was "hypocritical[ly] manufactur[ing] outrage" by petitioning for the lifting of the Jones Act? Luckily you're here to tell him he's whining about a "pea under the mattress". [Roll Eyes]

Oh okay, so now he's a dick?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Would it be too rude to suggest that I think you got the wrong end of that stick Romanlion [Smile]

Oh and I see Trump has made yet another blunder by appointing Tom Price. I think he only did it because the block has the same name as a mine in Western Australia, and Trump loves mines. Poor old Donald. He thought he knew all the best people [Smile]

[ 30. September 2017, 07:15: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I'm sorry I'll try that again:

Oh and I see Trump made yet another blunder by appointing Tom Price. I think he only did it because the bloke has the same name as a mine in Western Australia, and Trump loves mines. Poor old Donald. He thought he knew all the best people, but it turns out they were duds.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I see he is castigating Puerto Rico for being needy following the devastation they suffered from the hurricane. Says "they want everything done for them."

There really are no words strong enough to describe the inhumanity of this so-called man. There's just nowhere to begin to describe his despicableness.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

There really are no words strong enough to describe the inhumanity of this so-called man. There's just nowhere to begin to describe his despicableness.

Every time I think he's gone as low as he can go... he surprises me by sinking even deeper.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

There really are no words strong enough to describe the inhumanity of this so-called man. There's just nowhere to begin to describe his despicableness.

Every time I think he's gone as low as he can go... he surprises me by sinking even deeper.
Yes. I've stopped saying things like "it doesn't get any lower than this" because he seems to hear it as a personal challenge.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
A psychopath surrounded by Nazis, what could possibly be beneath him ?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
A psychopath surrounded by Nazis, what could possibly be beneath him ?

Race mongers for starters...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
A psychopath surrounded by Nazis, what could possibly be beneath him ?

Race mongers for starters...
Right. He is that too.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see he is castigating Puerto Rico for being needy following the devastation they suffered from the hurricane. Says "they want everything done for them."

There really are no words strong enough to describe the inhumanity of this so-called man. There's just nowhere to begin to describe his despicableness.

Yes. Some people I've heard are assuming it's just because PRs are (generally) brown-skinned people. Except he helped both Texas and Florida, which have lots of brown-skinned people, too.

So I speculate that it may be more that PR isn't on the mainland, and it doesn't register as "American" with him.

I think that, much of the time, he wanders around in a short-sighted daze, ringed round with fog. So he's got his very small world, maybe stage-size. And he can hear some things through the fog, but they often don't make much sense.


It will be interesting to see how T reacts to actually visiting PR--Tuesday, IIRC. (If he even goes through with it.) I strongly advise PR to rustle up as many US flags as they can, even damaged ones, and put them all over, especially where T will land. That might just catch his interest, and prompt him to help.

I gather he's been dealing with the governor. I almost hope he meets the mayor of San Juan, the capital. (Though I'm not sure I should wish that on *her*.) She spoke to the media, trying to prod the US gov't to help them. Didn't work, so she put out a call for anyone who could hear her to help. IIRC, she also said some not-so-nice things about the US gov't. (Not blaming her, but might be counter-productive.)

What I really don't understand is why they haven't loaded up big Chinook helicopters (or whatever the current thing is) and just lower/air-drop water and basic food? In some of the coverage, military (?) involved commented that, well, we've got this logistical problem and that (can't land, no truck drivers, etc.); and, if we can't conquer those, then we could lower supplies.

So why haven't they done that??? People are starving!!!

You know, if China, Russia, or other not-fond-of-the-US countries swarmed in with supplies, they'd have quite a PR coup by helping PR.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Trump v Americans in lots of trouble
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You forgot the key thing. Texas and Florida voted for him, and have many electoral college votes. PR isn't even a state. Everything for Lyin' Don revolves around himself, solely. Nothing else exists.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Well, evidently the PR governor is acknowledging problems with getting aid (Yahoo).

quote:
Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló told CBS just two days ago that thousands of shipping containers with food, water and medicine are just sitting in the port of San Juan not being distributed. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is disputing those claims.

On Friday morning, Deputy FEMA Administrator Daniel Kaniewski told CNN that the containers in the San Juan port likely hold retail goods and not hurricane relief supplies.

...how hard would it be to break the containers open...

Grrrrrr.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
PR is south of the bigly beatiful wall.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Brenda--

Yeah, I forgot voting would be a factor for him.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Or perhaps he thinks it's connected to Mexico in some way.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But, but...I thought Barking Mad was providing Puerto Rico (full of Brown, Bad Hombres though it might be) with the bigliest, most beautifullest federal aid any President ever in the whole world has ever given anyone, anywhere?

Am I wrong?

[Help]

O, you poor Americans. May you soon be relieved of this intolerable incubus (by non-violent means, of course - TIACW).

IJ
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, evidently the PR governor is acknowledging problems with getting aid (Yahoo).

quote:
Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló told CBS just two days ago that thousands of shipping containers with food, water and medicine are just sitting in the port of San Juan not being distributed. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is disputing those claims.

On Friday morning, Deputy FEMA Administrator Daniel Kaniewski told CNN that the containers in the San Juan port likely hold retail goods and not hurricane relief supplies.

...how hard would it be to break the containers open...

Grrrrrr.

Nothing to it with a pair of bolt cutters, but I'm pretty sure it's private property under seal and that would be considered looting.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It will be interesting to see how T reacts to actually visiting PR--Tuesday, IIRC.

It will be more interesting to see how Puertorriqueños react to the Fartletter-in-Chief.

quote:
I almost hope he meets the mayor of San Juan, the capital. . . . She also said some not-so-nice things about the US gov't.
My friend who lives in San Juan says there's more to her than what we're seeing on TV. Of the three political factions -- those favoring status quo, those favoring independence, and those favoring statehood -- she apparently sits staunchly with the independistas and is not shy about it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, PR might well be better off as independent, perhaps aligning itself with China or Russia.

Just to p**s off The Barking Orange, of course.

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Nothing to it with a pair of bolt cutters, but I'm pretty sure it's private property under seal and that would be considered looting.

Well, if it's brown people doing it, sure. But if we can find a couple of white people to do the bolt-cutting then it's just surviving.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Nothing to it with a pair of bolt cutters, but I'm pretty sure it's private property under seal and that would be considered looting.

Well, if it's brown people doing it, sure. But if we can find a couple of white people to do the bolt-cutting then it's just surviving.
[Roll Eyes]

Right...nothing more critical to survival in a disaster than some new Jordan's and a PS4 no matter what color you are.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
You've got some secret intel on what's in those containers? Cuz that would be super helpful right now.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Not that romantroll would ever reveal that secret knowledge.

Starving trolls out of existence is the only answer.

IJ
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Bishop's Finger, don't call people names in Purgatory please whether or not you think it is earned. And yes "troll" definitely counts as a name.

Gwai
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I hear and obey.

Apologies for stepping over the mark.

[Hot and Hormonal]

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
(Forgot to add that I mistook my whereabouts, and thought I was in Hell. Too much WHISKY after lunch, perhaps. Even so, Hostly admonition duly taken).

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
nothing more critical to survival in a disaster than some new Jordan's

Do you know what happens to sneakers soaked in swamp water? Have you ever tried walking across rocky ground barefoot? Maybe some new Jordans would be just the thing.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the shipping containers held more food packets, diapers, toiletries, bottled water, medicines, etc. than they do Jordans.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, evidently the PR governor is acknowledging problems with getting aid (Yahoo).

quote:
Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló told CBS just two days ago that thousands of shipping containers with food, water and medicine are just sitting in the port of San Juan not being distributed. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is disputing those claims.

On Friday morning, Deputy FEMA Administrator Daniel Kaniewski told CNN that the containers in the San Juan port likely hold retail goods and not hurricane relief supplies.

...how hard would it be to break the containers open...

Grrrrrr.

Nothing to it with a pair of bolt cutters, but I'm pretty sure it's private property under seal and that would be considered looting.
Picture the overwhelming goodwill around the world if some people overcame the red tape which prevented relief goods paid for by the US public getting to people in need and then being accused of looting by mean-spirited public servants who should have been doing their best to move the goods to those in need.

Good 'optics' / bad 'optics' ?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Optics aren’t important to someone who chiefly looks in the mirror.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
If I was running Cuba, I might be offering aid to Puerto Rico, and in a very public fashion.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's not just bolt cutters needed. It's trucks, to move materiel out to where people are. It's bulldozers, to clear the ruined roads for those trucks. It's drivers, for those bulldozers and trucks, and the diesel fuel to make them go. This all could and should have been thought about well in advance -- a preparation that calls for maturity, forethought and planning. These are not the words that first pop into your mind when you think about the current incumbent.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's not just bolt cutters needed. It's trucks, to move materiel out to where people are. It's bulldozers, to clear the ruined roads for those trucks. It's drivers, for those bulldozers and trucks, and the diesel fuel to make them go. This all could and should have been thought about well in advance -- a preparation that calls for maturity, forethought and planning. These are not the words that first pop into your mind when you think about the current incumbent.

Because the top responsibility of the POTUS is and always has been disaster preparedness in storm prone island territories.

Local officials there have met their responsibility by appearing for the cameras in custom printed "Help us. We are dying" t-shirts.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Your post must be some sort of satire. Because only a complete idiot could fail to be aware that the president could expedite aid. And only someone spending all their energy whacking off to Alex Jones could fail to have seen coverage of Puerto Ricans putting in great effort to help each other.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Because the top responsibility of the POTUS is and always has been disaster preparedness in storm prone island territories. ...

Well, sure, yeah, right. It's not like his fat 73-year-old ass would be any use in an emergency, so why shouldn't he go golfing? He swore an oath to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies and the Constitution is safe in the National Archives and doesn't need food or water or medical aid. You're quite right, there's nothing about protecting the people from natural disasters in President's oath of office. Drumpf actually believes it is his duty to expose citizens to danger. That's why he's rescinded those pesky executive orders about reinforcing infrastructure to take into account future climate changes.

romanlion, you know why "disaster preparedness in storm prone island territories" isn't in POTUS' job description? Because no President before Drumpf needed to be told.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's not just bolt cutters needed. It's trucks, to move materiel out to where people are. It's bulldozers, to clear the ruined roads for those trucks. It's drivers, for those bulldozers and trucks, and the diesel fuel to make them go. This all could and should have been thought about well in advance -- a preparation that calls for maturity, forethought and planning. These are not the words that first pop into your mind when you think about the current incumbent.

Bingo.

And along with all that machinery, you also need staff. But FEMA was already drastically understaffed leading into hurricane season, even for normal conditions. Because it turns out hiring people is boooorrring. Being presidential is supposed to be all about parades and extra scoops of ice cream and speeches and having lots of big guns that go boom boom boom. Not boring stuff like hiring staff and allocating resources for trucks or figuring out they need fuel to run on. Booooring.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

romanlion, you know why "disaster preparedness in storm prone island territories" isn't in POTUS' job description?

Because it isn't his responsibility?

Because Mayors? Governors?

Speaking of Mayors and disaster, what's good 'ol Ray Nagin up to these days?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He must have sold his soul to the Devil as nothing hurts him, like Putin. He can do no wrong. Whereas Theresa May and now Spain are walking dead for their single moments of political ineptitude.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He must have sold his soul to the Devil as nothing hurts him, like Putin.

You've got a few extra words there. Here, I'll fix it for you:

He sold his soul to the Devil: Putin
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
If only Bush hadn't realised too late why disaster relief has to be a Presidential responsibility.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is so, so not rocket science. You do not need to be a genius to grasp this. Disaster management and prep is well known and easy to do. All you need is forethought and planning and funding -- in advance.
Shall we list all the other things, that are not getting the forethought and planning and are also not particle physics in difficulty? Things like drug and food safety, or repairing dams. Or, for that matter, having the websites up and running so that people can sign up for Obamacare. (They've cunningly taken them down for repair.)
One is forced to conclude that no, he doesn't care whether people die or not. Not if it interferes with the golf game, certainly.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Wow, that was fast! Only three days from no way is Trump abandoning people to die to Trump should abandon people to die 'cuz it's not his job to protect Americans.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes. Some people I've heard are assuming it's just because PRs are (generally) brown-skinned people. Except he helped both Texas and Florida, which have lots of brown-skinned people, too.

So I speculate that it may be more that PR isn't on the mainland, and it doesn't register as "American" with him.

Another possibility is that Trump only knows what he sees on television:

quote:
Hurricanes Harvey and Irene were massive cable television events that dominated coverage on all the networks. MSNBC went so all-in on storm news that they sent Chris Hayes out in a windbreaker to stand around in the wind in Naples, Florida.

But as Dhrumil Mehta has shown at 538, Maria was relatively invisible on cable.

“People on TV news shows spoke significantly fewer sentences about Hurricane Maria than about Hurricanes Harvey and Irma,” he writes, and “the spike in conversation about Puerto Rico right as the hurricane hit was also much smaller than the spike in mentions of Texas and Florida.”

Cable producers surely had their reasons for this. But something anyone in the media could tell you is that cable producers’ news judgment is not an infallible guide to the substantive importance of various stories. In particular, a broad range of issues — potentially including natural disasters in outlying US territories — have an asymmetrical quality to them, where if handled appropriately most people won’t care that much, but if botched it eventually becomes a big deal.

This is why traditionally presidents have relied upon staff and the massive information gathering capabilities of the American government for information rather than letting television set the agenda.
Trump has a different philosophy, however, and spent the post-storm Saturday glued to his television and letting the hosts of “Fox & Friends” drag him into an ill-advised Twitter spat with NFL stars.

Maybe paying attention to those daily briefings might be a good idea after all?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Unless he cancels it, he's supposed to go and visit PR next week. I wonder if hey'll believe the testimony of his own eyes, or whether it has to be on a screen.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
He'll assume it was all contrived by fake news media and Democrat-baited ingrate politicians -- and will tweet so!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
PR is south of the bigly beatiful wall.

Four prototypes are being built in S. Calif, reportedly about 30' by 30'.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If I was running Cuba, I might be offering aid to Puerto Rico, and in a very public fashion.

Yup, I'd wondered about that, too. I don't know if they have any to spare, though--a lot of Cubans are in bad circumstances, as I understand it. However, I think the medical care is supposed to be good, if you can get it. Maybe give that kind of aid?

More fancifully:

If the Caribbean island territories, nations, etc. formed a union for mutual support and aid...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
If only Bush hadn't realised too late why disaster relief has to be a Presidential responsibility.

On the first (?) anniversary of Katrina, Dubya met in New Orleans with NBC news anchor Brian Williams. The optics were great. BW stood solidly toe to toe with a nervous Dubya. (BW had a fall from professional grace, since then, but he got this bit right.)
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HCH:
[qb] If I was running Cuba, I might be offering aid to Puerto Rico, and in a very public fashion. .

They offered 2500 medical staff to Louisa after Katrina and more than their fair share to the African Ebola outbreak.

Currently "More than 750* health workers have arrived in Antigua, Barbuda, Saint Kitts, Nevis, Saint Lucia, the Bahamas, Dominica and Haiti." independent

They are it seems only offering PR a mobile hospital though havana times

[ 02. October 2017, 07:47: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Nothing to it with a pair of bolt cutters, but I'm pretty sure it's private property under seal and that would be considered looting.

Well, if it's brown people doing it, sure. But if we can find a couple of white people to do the bolt-cutting then it's just surviving.
Perhaps the general who's supposedly in charge of helping out could simply commandeer the shipping containers? AIUI, there's plenty of precedence. Might wind up in court for years. And I don't know if his career/pension would be threatened. But he'd likely save lives, be an international hero, and possibly get a Nobel Peace Prize.

It's disturbing that FEMA said it's "probably" just consumer goods, and not aid. They don't know???

I'm no lawyer. But if someone formed a non-profit on behalf of PR, one that could receive donations that would count towards tax deductions, maybe owners of the crates could simply donate the containers' contents, and get tax deductions? Seems like a win/win.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
If I was running Cuba, I might be offering aid to Puerto Rico, and in a very public fashion. .

They offered 2500 medical staff to Louisa after Katrina and more than their fair share to the African Ebola outbreak.

Currently "More than 750* health workers have arrived in Antigua, Barbuda, Saint Kitts, Nevis, Saint Lucia, the Bahamas, Dominica and Haiti." independent

They are it seems only offering PR a mobile hospital though havana times

"Only"?

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Nothing to it with a pair of bolt cutters, but I'm pretty sure it's private property under seal and that would be considered looting.

Well, if it's brown people doing it, sure. But if we can find a couple of white people to do the bolt-cutting then it's just surviving.
Perhaps the general who's supposedly in charge of helping out could simply commandeer the shipping containers? AIUI, there's plenty of precedence. Might wind up in court for years. And I don't know if his career/pension would be threatened. But he'd likely save lives, be an international hero, and possibly get a Nobel Peace Prize.
The U.S. government can simply appropriate what they like. Under the terms of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment they have to provide "just compensation" (i.e. fair market value) to the previous owners, but it's something that could be done and for which there's already a large body of precedent.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...
It's disturbing that FEMA said it's "probably" just consumer goods, and not aid. They don't know???...

I can't address the "probably", but consumer goods are also desperately needed "aid". Consumer goods like clothes, shoes, furniture, bedding, appliances, building materials and fixtures, housewares, computers, cell phones, school supplies ... There are people in the Caribbean with literally nothing left but the clothes they are wearing. They need more than just bottled water and MREs.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I actually feel a bit sorry for President Barking Dog today. He must feel torn between going to comfort the beleaguered Puerto Ricans, or doing the same for the bereaved and wounded of Las Vegas.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Already decided. Guess who he's going to visit, brown people or white ones.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
One can't help thinking what Obama would have done i.e. already visited PR (or perhaps visiting both on the same day).

IYSWIM.

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Already decided. Guess who he's going to visit, brown people or white ones.

Yup
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
A hard-hitting article, pouring well-deserved shame on The Oleaginous One.

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As always, it missed, none stuck, he's bone dry and smelling of roses. And Puerto Rico has been honoured with a tin cup and Vegas with warmest condolences, what more do you want?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
A new President?

(If I were American - though I gather Mr. Pennies would not be much better than Ozymandias the Oleaginous).

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
(If I were American - though I gather Mr. Pennies would not be much better than Ozymandias the Oleaginous).

IJ

Mr. Ha'penny's response is to come to Phoenix to meet with Governor Doug Ducey and Arizona business leaders to discuss Republican efforts to pass tax reform... Following those meetings, he will attend a political fundraiser at an undisclosed location.

(I do wish they'd announce where he's going to appear since I have a meeting in Phoenix this afternoon and want to avoid the Trump/Pence bunch.)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
/slight tangent/

Mr. Ha'penny is a Good Name, but for some reason it reminded me of the old English word 'dandiprat' (or 'dandyprat'):

1.
A small English coin minted in the 16th century (worth twopence);
2(a.)
A small boy;
2(b).
An insignificant person.

Interesting choice, no?
[Snigger]

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Back on Puerto Rico, a Washington Post article quotes our president as follows:

President Trump on Tuesday told Puerto Rico officials they should feel “very proud” they haven’t lost thousands of lives like in “a real catastrophe like Katrina,” while adding that the devastated island territory has thrown the nation’s budget “a little out of whack.”

Is there no one who can keep this moron's mouth shut?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Back on Puerto Rico, a Washington Post article quotes our president as follows:

President Trump on Tuesday told Puerto Rico officials they should feel “very proud” they haven’t lost thousands of lives like in “a real catastrophe like Katrina,” while adding that the devastated island territory has thrown the nation’s budget “a little out of whack.”

Is there no one who can keep this moron's mouth shut?

And that doesn't even get into the fact that the low official death toll is likely a product of the difficulty of getting accurate information out of Puerto Rico:

quote:
But one figure is disquietingly absent: an accurate death toll.

The official death count has not budged since Wednesday, when the Puerto Rican government said that just 16 people had been killed as a result of the storm. That prompted President Trump to claim Tuesday on his visit to the island that it wasn’t a “real catastrophe” like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, which had thousands of deaths.

Yet there is good reason to believe the actual figure is much higher than 16, and will continue to climb.

Omaya Sosa Pascual is a reporter with the Center for Investigative Journalism (CPI) in San Juan. She was skeptical of the government’s figure of 16 and began to call the 69 hospitals around the country, asking them about deaths related to the hurricane.

Pascual spoke to dozens of doctors, administrators, morgue directors, and funeral directors around the country, and wrote up her initial findings in a September 28 report in the Miami Herald. She then got Puerto Rico’s public safety secretary to confirm Monday that there have been dozens more deaths than the official statistic reflects. By her count, there are now an estimated 60 confirmed deaths linked to the hurricane and possibly hundreds more to come.

There's something about Trump taking credit for a low official death count that's mostly the direct result of his administration's slow response to the crisis that seems like a perfect metaphor for his whole administration.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The death toll in Puerto Rico isn't BIGLY enough for him??

[Eek!]

O, WHAT have you Usanians done to deserve this [expletive deleted] wanker?

Next, he'll be tweeting about how his lack of concern for gun control has led to the bigliest, beautifullest, slaughter in Las Vegas, proving yet again How Great America Is...

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
If I believed in an interventionist God I'd happily fast unto death for Trump's Damascene conversion to gun control. If he grew a pair he could take a Law of the Medes and Persians approach and transcend, roll back by rolling forward, the Second Amendment, surely? There HAS to be a way that can be framed? Or would it take the second coming?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
"We'll be talking about gun control as time goes by", we don't need the second coming!
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Who needs paper towels?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
WTF?

[Confused]

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
No doubt the towels are meant to help with mopping up the flooding. [brick wall]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Ah, I see.

Or perhaps to dry the anguished tears of those who have just realised what an Odious Oaf they've got as 'president'...

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
There are none such.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I wish Trump would just throw in the towel.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Puerto Rico death toll now up to 34, expected to continue to go up as inland reports start coming in.

Foot in mouth disease:

Telling a family that "We are going to take care of you. Have a good time"

Telling the Puerto Rican leaders: "Puerto Rico has thrown the Federal Budget our of wack."

(As ready mentioned) Comparing Puerto Rico to the real catastrophe of Katrina.

After tossing paper towels to a gathering "There is a lot of love here." (No, Orange One, there is a lot of desperation there. Besides, what is a roll of paper towels going to do.)

[ 04. October 2017, 16:07: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
A Bible verse springs to mind, to wit, Daniel 25, verse 27:

'...Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.'

(King James Version, of course, as that's what the Odious Oaf's fundamentalist buddies reckon as Ultimate Truth.)

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
After tossing paper towels to a gathering "There is a lot of love here." (No, Orange One, there is a lot of desperation there. Besides, what is a roll of paper towels going to do.)

Blogger digby makes an interesting literary comparison:

quote:
For some reason, watching President Trump's visit to Puerto Rico on Tuesday brought to mind the scene in Charles Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities" in which the Marquis St. Evrémonde runs over a child with his carriage and without remorse or compassion declares, "It is extraordinary to me that you people cannot take care of yourselves and your children!" He throws a coin at the grieving father and another into the crowd, and as he moves on, one of the peasants on the street throws a coin back in the carriage, at which point the Marquis turns in anger and threatens to "exterminate" them all. The peasants hang their heads and say not a word, knowing what power the man has to destroy them.

Donald Trump didn't throw coins into the crowd in Puerto Rico, but he did throw Bounty paper towels. And he didn't scold the island's people to their faces for failing to take care of their children, but he didn't need to. He'd made it clear in his tweets that he thought Puerto Ricans had refused to help themselves because "they want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort."

Officials on the ground wisely behaved much as Dickens' peasants did. They kept their eyes down and parroted the president as he complimented his own leadership over and over again. This was more like an audience with the king, not a visit from a democratically elected leader who had come to forge a personal connection to what had happened.

<snip>

He believes people want to admire him from a distance, see him as bigger than life, as one anointed to leadership by dint of genetic destiny and special talent. But once in a while an ingrate will toss the coin he generously sent their way back in his carriage and he gets angry.

If you need something from the king, you'd better tell him how great he is and then ask very, very nicely.

On the other hand Trump did have a "record-breaking" accomplishment recently, so I guess he may have something to crow about after all!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Not scriptural, but certainly appropriate...

Jimmy Kimmel, a late-night talk show host, commented on Trump's response to Puerto Rico:
quote:
He really puts the ass in compassion.

 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
How long, O Lord, how long?.......

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Now, the Orange Oaf is off to 'console ' Las Vegas. From BBC news:

'He will act as consoler-in-chief in the wake of an attack that left 58 people dead and injured more than 500.

The gunman, Stephen Paddock, shot himself dead as police approached.

"Well, it's a very sad thing," Mr Trump told reporters at the White House before he left for Nevada.'

WTF is a 'consoler-in-chief'? Is he taking along with him lesser consolers, to console (presumably) people less injured, or not so biglier bereaved?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Now, the Orange Oaf is off to 'console ' Las Vegas.

Is he going to throw paper towels at them?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
plasters. paper towels for flooding, plasters of gaping bullet wounds
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
We should just be grateful they're not the new Trump Brand Golden Paper Towels-- the only towel Ivanka uses! Just $8.99 a roll, each is embedded with a single real gold thread-- just the chic touch needed to bring a touch of class to your natural or manmade disaster.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Do they have the motto 'Covfefe' printed on every sheet? Enquiring minds need to know...

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
How long, O Lord, how long?.......

[Disappointed]

IJ

As long as we let it.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Now, the Orange Oaf is off to 'console ' Las Vegas.

Is he going to throw paper towels at them?
No, gambling chips.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I was afraid in PR he was going to make a couple of toddlers fight cagematch style to decide whose family got,the canned chicken
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Let's go 2018. My hope is renewed now that my expectations have been managed. Let's give those gerrymandering bastards a right kicking.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
And yet who is there in the Democratic Party who could come forward and realistically challenge the Fartletter-in-Chief?

If there were someone, surely that person would have come forward already, organizing genuine relief efforts for Puerto Rico (something more useful than paper towels, I would hope), researching what the real death toll is and how steadily it is climbing, exposing the smug sarcasm and the bigoted ass-kissing of the Fartletter-in-Chief, etc.

Frankly I'm surprised that the Clintons, through their multi-million dollar public and family foundations, haven't done something -- or if they have, haven't publicized it. But of course they aren't scandal-free themselves, and the Fartletter-in-Chief knows it.

But the Democratic Party has no one. And that is the crux of the tragedy politics face in this country.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Might no one do better than Hilary?

How are the mid-terms run? My guess is a series of local and state contests... So is it about the present Congressional leadership, or is it much more focussed around local issues?

I saw a good segment illustrating the extent of the political divide in America on Sam Bee tonight. Americans, I'm sure, already know all about this. Part 3 of the Oct 3rd episode is the relevant one.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
If there were someone, surely that person would have come forward already, organizing genuine relief efforts for Puerto Rico (something more useful than paper towels, I would hope), researching what the real death toll is and how steadily it is climbing, exposing the smug sarcasm and the bigoted ass-kissing of the Fartletter-in-Chief, etc.

So Carmen Yulin Cruz?

Now that I think about it, can a native of Puerto Rico run for President?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
So Carmen Yulín Cruz?

Now that I think about it, can a native of Puerto Rico run for President?

If John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) counts as a "natural born citizen" I see no reason why a native-born Puerto Rican wouldn't count as one.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Instead of John McCain, a better example is Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona before it became a state.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
For those unfamiliar, the Constitutional requirements for the U.S. presidency are:

The only sticking point I can see for Ms. Cruz might be this last one. Puerto Rico is definitely part of "the United States", but some might interpret the residence requirement to refer to residency within one of the constituent states of the U.S., excluding the territories. That seems a bit of a tendentious interpretation, but as far as I know that exact question has never come up.

There is some precedent here. Vice president Charles Curtis was born in Kansas territory, shortly before statehood was granted, so being born in a territory is not a bar to the presidency (or vice presidency, which has the same requirements).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
So Carmen Yulín Cruz?

Now that I think about it, can a native of Puerto Rico run for President?

If John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) counts as a "natural born citizen" I see no reason why a native-born Puerto Rican wouldn't count as one.
McCain was born to US citizens, therefore his place of birth was irrelevant. He was born on a military base to a father who was currently serving, also making the status of the country he was born in irrelevant. At least as far as I understand US birth laws.
However, Puerto Ricans are naturally born citizens, and that is the main requirement. It would be amusing, however, to have a person who cannot vote for president become one.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

There is some precedent here. Vice president Charles Curtis was born in Kansas territory, shortly before statehood was granted, so being born in a territory is not a bar to the presidency (or vice presidency, which has the same requirements).

Yeah, but he was white...
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
What about Kermit the Frog? No matter where he was born, he'd make a better president.

Besides, he's GREEN!

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

There is some precedent here. Vice president Charles Curtis was born in Kansas territory, shortly before statehood was granted, so being born in a territory is not a bar to the presidency (or vice presidency, which has the same requirements).

Yeah, but he was white...
Interestingly enough, under U.S. law so is Ms. Cruz. That goes back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which ended the Mexican-American War, transferred the northern part of what was then Mexico, and guaranteed American citizenship to any formerly Mexican citizens who chose to remain in territory being ceded to the Americans. To be an American citizen in 1848 you had to be "white", so the treaty stipulated the whiteness of former Mexican citizens who chose to transfer their allegiance to the U.S. That's one of the reasons that the U.S. Census Bureau considers "Hispanic" to be an ethnicity rather than a race.

Of course historically the "whiteness" of Hispanic Americans has not been particularly respected by the wider American population.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
OK. I'll bite the bullet. I'll run for president under the Democratic party.

At least I know how to not insult people who are suffering.

I know nothing about politics, which apparently isn't a requirement for the office.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
So Carmen Yulín Cruz?

Now that I think about it, can a native of Puerto Rico run for President?

If John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) counts as a "natural born citizen" I see no reason why a native-born Puerto Rican wouldn't count as one.
Apparently, if they're born after
1940, they are "natural born citizens."
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I believe Boris Johnson was born in the US ...
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, at least he has suitably Mad Hair...

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What about Kermit the Frog? No matter where he was born, he'd make a better president.

Besides, he's GREEN!

IJ

And that ain't easy.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
From the article linked by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
The Nationality Act of 1940 established that Puerto Rico was a part of the United States for citizenship purposes. Since Jan. 13, 1941, birth in Puerto Rico amounts to birth in the United States for citizenship purposes.

However, the prevailing consensus among scholars, lawmakers and policymakers is that Puerto Ricans are not entitled to a constitutional citizenship status. While Puerto Ricans are officially U.S. citizens, the territory remains unincorporated. This contradiction has enabled the governance of Puerto Rico as a separate and unequal territory that belongs to, but is not a part of, the United States.

That last bit highlights the issue that Crœsos identified: Ms. Cruz does qualify as a U.S. citizen, having been born in 1963, long after the Nationality Act. And she would meet the age requirement. But it is a debatable point whether she has been "fourteen years a resident of the United States" because residency in Puerto Rico is not the same as residency in the United States (it belongs to, but is not a part of, the United States).

According to the Font of All Knowledge (a/k/a Wikipedia) she attended Boston University and then Carnegie Mellon University, but it does not look like she actually resided in the US for 14 years.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
It looks like FEMA has found an easy way to resolve the bad news about the lack of electricity and clean drinking water in Puerto Rico: simply stop reporting those statistics. Fast, simple, easy!

The numbers are still available (in Spanish) on the Puerto Rican government's own website. It's almost like those ungrateful wretches don't want good news!
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Last night, Mr. Orange One had a formal dinner with military dignitaries at the White House. As they were posing for pictures, the OO said: "This is the calm before the storm." Reporters asked him what he meant. He replied, "You will see."

Ominous

I recently had a friend in Calgary, Canada, mention that he was thinking about building an underground shelter. I told him not to worry. Now that does not sound like a bad idea.

In other news, it is now being reported that Chief of Staff General Kelly, Secretary of Treasury Mununhin, and Secretary of State Tillerson have agreed that if one of them is forced to resign the other two will resign as well.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Source for the latter?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In other news, it is now being reported that Chief of Staff General Kelly, Secretary of Treasury Mununhin, and Secretary of State Tillerson have agreed that if one of them is forced to resign the other two will resign as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Source for the latter?

Someone only described as "One US official".
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Trump increases abortion rate.

(I'm not discussing this - that would be a DH - but this just *is*.)
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
As in: Oh God, I had sex with a Trump last night. Quick, get me the Morning After Pill, STAT!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Trump increases abortion rate.

(I'm not discussing this - that would be a DH - but this just *is*.)

This is SOP with Republican presidents, actually.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Then there is the comment by Betsy De Vos that Trump cannot be a moron because he hired her.

I think I will let that one stand on its own.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The numbers are still available (in Spanish) on the Puerto Rican government's own website. It's almost like those ungrateful wretches don't want good news!

Actually, English is available. In the upper right-hand corner, there's a little flag pull-down menu, and you can switch languages.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Then there is the comment by Betsy De Vos that Trump cannot be a moron because he hired her.

Well .. she married into a fortune that preys on the stupid ..
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
El Presidente continues his crusade against women . [Roll Eyes] [Mad]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Someone - do something to get rid of him, soon, please.....

(Yes, I know TIACW.....).

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Then there is the comment by Betsy De Vos that Trump cannot be a moron because he hired her.

Well .. she married into a fortune that preys on the stupid ..
You forgot that she invests in pseudo-science, her brother founded the impeccable Blackwater and she thinks she is qualified to run something in which she has no experience.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You forgot that she invests in pseudo-science, her brother founded the impeccable Blackwater and she thinks she is qualified to run something in which she has no experience.

Well, omitted to mention, rather than forgot. There is a deep seam of stuff that should be discussed fairly seriously within the church - the unthinking acceptance of the crusader rhetoric of Erik Prince being one of them.

There was an NPR program on her spell as a school mentor a while back - and I did wonder to what extent her approach was bourne out of a Christian-Reformed influenced preference for providence over everything else. Her interventions were kind at the individual level, while systematically harmful at a societal level.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Originally from Politico, I watched via The Young Turks some of the complaints if the GoP donors: complaints that their money hasn't got them what they want.

Has this ever been so visible before? Donors complaining of not getting something? I know it goes on, but often they try to hide behind the "we're not trying to buy anything" line. The guard seems to be dropped.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Robert Reich, who was Secretary of Labor in Bill Clinton's administration, has put in his two cents about Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's current dilemma.

"Memo to Tillerson about the Moron" (RobertReich.org).

It's a good read, with a great ending.
[Two face]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The sooner Kim Wrong-Un detonates an H-bomb a couple of hundred miles up the better.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Not funny.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Not trying to be. It will stop Trump doing anything insane.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But only if the sane people manage to overpower the Mad Barking One quickly.....

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The guys in NORAD and the cabinet are sane enough. Kim, a rational man, won't start what he can't finish, despite Trump's 99.9999% empty rhetoric. But a thermonuclear space burst would do what it did for China in '67.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
This being Purg: link please?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sure. After this, China was treated with respect.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hmm. Doesn't make me feel any safer, somehow.

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The sooner he does it, the sooner Trump can't preempt it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yeeeeees, maybe - but Barking Mad Dog's reaction is likely to be just ever-so-slightly OTT....

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Maybe, maybe not.

44.2 is just as likely to invite Kim Jong Un over for a round of golf at Bedminster after the Young Un sets of his radioactive toy. The Menace admires the brash, the bold, the dictatorial, and he'll see KJU as having initiated himself into the Big Boys Club. Then all will be forgiven.

Kim Jong Un may be dining at Mar-A-Largo before the year is out, especially if he manages to nuke some Democrats or that bothersome, ungrateful Poo-air-to Rico.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Exactly. As the US said to the UK in '57, welcome to the club. We developed the H-bomb to impress them primarily, not Russia.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The sooner Kim Wrong-Un detonates an H-bomb a couple of hundred miles up the better.

{blink}

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Not funny.

Amen.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not trying to be. It will stop Trump doing anything insane.

In what universe?


quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But only if the sane people manage to overpower the Mad Barking One quickly.....

[Help]

...which depends on sane people being there, choosing to risk their lives and futures, managing to do something, and doing it successfully...

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The guys in NORAD and the cabinet are sane enough. Kim, a rational man, won't start what he can't finish, despite Trump's 99.9999% empty rhetoric. But a thermonuclear space burst would do what it did for China in '67.

No. No. No. Please listen very carefully:

.The. .president. .can. .launch. .nukes. .on. .his/her. .own. .THERE. .ARE. .NO. .CHECKS/BALANCES. .ON. .THAT. !!NONE!!

This weekend's "Radio Lab" show was about that.
"Season 15 | Episode 7 Nukes: The Broadcast"

The second half is all about that, specifically in the context of Trump. The hosts talk with various folks in the know--including a guy who was training to be a missilier (takes 2 of them to turn the keys to launch a nuclear missile). When he was learning all the protocols and reasoning, he made the mistake of privately asking his teacher if there were checks and balances on the president. Ye olde "career-limiting move", and then some.

The first half is about a very unlucky man who survived Hiroshima, and managed to get to Nagasaki...
[Help]

I'm glad they put that part first, because it reminds listeners of the health and DNA effects...*before* learning that there are no checks on the president.

There's audio. I don't see a transcript. But there is an article, summing the show up.

This is really important. If you have a chance, check it out.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The US has become significantly more degraded, in this claendar year. I am ashamed of it.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
In the latest edition of "Why don't you just flippin' google it yerself", I wondered whether any comparisons could be made between the recovery of Puerto Rico and that of San Martin, the British Virgin Islands or Branson's Island? Obviously, I only want comparisons to be made if they reflect badly on Trump.

Does anyone remember when we used to call toasted sandwiches Brevilles? And what were Berkos? I know. I don't know how to use the interweb.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The US has become significantly more degraded, in this claendar year. I am ashamed of it.

IMHO, it all started going downhill when you stopped buying electric kettles. There is nothing so soothing as a nice cup of tea.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
IMHO, it all started going downhill when you stopped buying electric kettles. There is nothing so soothing as a nice cup of tea.

That's only part of the story. The degradation started with the invention of teabags. Which degraded tea to a convenience product, thus reducing tea to teabag. The line leads directly from there to canned capitalism (Coca-cola and ilk), paper cups full of hot milk-sugar water, beer made of corn, chorleywooded bread, wine in boxes, and the decline of civilization. Though there's something to Spam and Spork packed in hog jelly and pineapple on pizza that makes me understand how we got to paper towels for hurricane survivors, lozenges for coughing loser politicos, guns and vans and knives. Angels fear to smile. Put-ins and put-ons.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
No, it all started going wrong when we invented agriculture. That's where humanity really went off the rails.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Tut. We all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Fantasy GK. There are fifteen different novels as to why it can't happen under the surface of this:

wiki - Authorization of a nuclear or strategic attack

Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.

If the President fires the Secretary, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will look to the Deputy Secretary of Defense to confirm that a nuclear strike is warranted. He will not pass a nuclear strike order to the operating forces unless the two-man rule has been followed. Beauchamp, Zack (August 3, 2016). "If President Trump Decided to Use Nukes, He Could Do It Easily". Vox. Retrieved October 2, 2016.


NYT - Debate Over Trump’s Fitness Raises Issue of Checks on Nuclear Power

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGERAUG. 4, 2016

... history suggests that in practice, there may be ways to slow down or even derail the decision-making process.


Politico Magazine

What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button?

A nuclear launch expert plays out the various scenarios.

By BRUCE BLAIR June 11, 2016

Although no president during the atomic age appears to have ever lost his grip on reality to such an extent that an insane nuclear act might have resulted, top advisers to President Richard Nixon tried to constrain his launch authority during the Watergate scandal that ultimately forced his resignation. His secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, quietly instructed the Pentagon war room to double check with him if Nixon contacted it to order up a nuclear strike. Nixon’s mental stability, and his heavy drinking, caused concern within his inner circle that he might behave erratically out of despair and depression.


Provoking the DPRK to a conventional 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident is most likely and, again, Wrong-un's winning, so why would he be provoked to lose even if he gets to destroy Seoul in the first day?

For it to be said that there is no military strategy for stopping Kim, that must mean that it isn't known that he doesn't have unknown silos or that even if they're all known and can be taken out by cruise missile strikes (after a successful provocation above ... or pre-emptively) followed by immediate airborne division assault per site, meanwhile Wrong-un destroys Seoul etc, etc: the price isn't worth it, even for Trump.

As Wrong-un DOESN'T have nuclear ICBM capability (he's not done the space test), what actually is stopping Trump in this, the only window he has? It's now or never and has been for weeks.

If Kim could do a space test, why hasn't he? It's not rational.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
chorleywooded bread

I might agree with most of your list, but what do you have against the Chorleywood process?
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Tut. We all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place.

We should never have left the oceans.And as for digital watches

Is Outrage! Is most definitely Outrage
[Two face]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
chorleywooded bread

I might agree with most of your list, but what do you have against the Chorleywood process?
It produces an exceptionally soft bread within which the protein molecules are all shattered into very short chains, it requires the addition of large amounts of sugar, yeast, often additives, and the product stales quickly. Inferior massed produced startch in many cases. (I've baked for 35 years)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Martin--

Actually, the radio show to which I linked covers much of what you said, including Nixon and the secretary of defense. And still comes down to "there are no checks and balances in place to stop Trump from pushing The Button".

That aside, why are you expecting K to behave rationally?

And you seem to wind up expecting *T* to behave rationally, too.

What gives? Is this just a form of whistling in the dark?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Tut. We all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place.

We should never have left the oceans.And as for digital watches

Is Outrage! Is most definitely Outrage
[Two face]

Why don't we all head to the Restaurant At The End Of Universe, catch the dinner show, and relax? ("Milliways, better known as the Restaurant at the End of the Universe" (Wikia).)
[Cool]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Martin--

Actually, the radio show to which I linked covers much of what you said, including Nixon and the secretary of defense. And still comes down to "there are no checks and balances in place to stop Trump from pushing The Button".

That aside, why are you expecting K to behave rationally?

And you seem to wind up expecting *T* to behave rationally, too.

What gives? Is this just a form of whistling in the dark?

The link doesn't work GK. K is behaving perfectly rationally. Including cautiously. As is T.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Martin--

Profuse apologies for the messed-up link!

Take 2:

This weekend's "Radio Lab" show was about that.
CORRECTED "Season 15 | Episode 7 Nukes: The Broadcast"
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

That aside, why are you expecting K to behave rationally?

And you seem to wind up expecting *T* to behave rationally, too.

I don't know why Martin expects KJI to behave rationally. That said, it seems that he has - probably - been behaving rationally the majority of the time:

https://youtu.be/wio6BCa-GBU

[Warning - the video is very long - but the first 20 minutes are an analysis of NKs progression of tests and an analysis of the rationality of their actions].
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

That aside, why are you expecting K to behave rationally?

And you seem to wind up expecting *T* to behave rationally, too.

I don't know why Martin expects KJI to behave rationally. That said, it seems that he has - probably - been behaving rationally the majority of the time:

https://youtu.be/wio6BCa-GBU

[Warning - the video is very long - but the first 20 minutes are an analysis of NKs progression of tests and an analysis of the rationality of their actions].

I expect him to behave rationally as he's a rational man? What would you do in his situation?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I expect him to behave rationally as he's a rational man? What would you do in his situation?

I tend to agree. As the linked video points out - post Saddam and Gaddafi, he is likely to have made the rational calculation that if he were to volunteer giving up his nuclear programme, he might face the regime change option.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is becoming increasingly clear in the US that we are not being led by a rational person, no sir. It's terrifying.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is becoming increasingly clear in the US that we are not being led by a rational person, no sir. It's terrifying.

It wasn't clear before? Though I continue to wonder if this is the disease or only the latest symptom.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Trump's stupid war on black NFL players continued this weekend. Mike Pence flew back from Las Vegas to Indianapolis, ostensibly to watch the Colts game, where franchise-legend Payton Manning's number was to be retired. Even tweeted a picture of himself in the stands a few minutes before kickoff. Only he was so offended by players kneeling during the National Anthem that he left in a huff, tweeting again to make sure that everyone noticed. He then boarded his plane for a planned appearance in Los Angeles.

A few holes in the story started to emerge shortly after the event. While Pence actually was at the game, the picture he tweeted was actually something he had already tweeted three years ago. Then we learned that the VP's press group was left in the bus rather than walked into the stadium with Pence, being told that he was likely to leave shortly. Yep, this was a planned protest.

People started looking into the cost of the stunt, and early estimates showed that the extra flights alone cost taxpayers about $245,000.00.

And of course yesterday, the Administration sent emails to its supporters list, using the stunt as a fundraising opportunity.

49ers safety Eric Reid, who was one of the players kneeling, had this to say about the stunt:

quote:
My honest reaction … Does anybody know the last time he’s been to a football game? With that being said, he tweeted out a three-year old photo of him at a Colts game so with the information I have the last time he was at a Colts game was three years ago. So this looks like a PR stunt to me. He knew our team has had the most players protest. He knew that we were probably going to do it again. This is what systemic oppression looks like. A man with power comes to the game, tweets a couple of things out and leaves the game with an attempt to thwart our efforts. Based on the information I have, that’s the assumption I’ve made.
That was before the fundraising pitch, which further solidifies Reid's statement about systematic oppression. "We use our power to stand up to uppity black people; give us money in appreciation!"

Is this even subtle enough to be called a dog whistle anymore?

In the meantime, after milking the story for a vague "unity" message, the NFL subtly tweaked its on-field conduct rules to suggest that players could be penalized for not standing at attention, although there is no telling if it would actually hold up if the union pressed back. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who was more than happy to be seen kneeling with his team before the anthem a few weeks ago, is on record saying that he will bench any player who kneels during the anthem. And ESPN has suspended Jemele Hill, a long-time correspondent, for suggesting that people could boycott the Cowboy's sponsors in retaliation. (Hill has long had to put up with racist and misogynist comments and tweets for her work for ESPN. If anyone has the authority to identify racist and sexist attitudes coming out of the White House, and a platform where she could reach white male viewers and educate them about it, it is Hill. ESPN is blowing this opportunity.)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
If the White House is an 'adult day care centre', it's not doing a very good job. In this country, it would be under investigation, or even closed down.

BTW, just who arethe adults? There's a mad kid on the block, as anyone can see, but...

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is becoming increasingly clear in the US that we are not being led by a rational person, no sir. It's terrifying.

It wasn't clear before? Though I continue to wonder if this is the disease or only the latest symptom.
What disease? What symptom? What irrationality? I agree there IS irrationality, but it's normal irrationality which everybody has to 270 degrees or another.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
While Pence actually was at the game, the picture he tweeted was actually something he had already tweeted three years ago.

I did think his wife looked a bit younger than she does now, but thought it might just be some Melania-type "improvements."
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If the White House is an 'adult day care centre', it's not doing a very good job. In this country, it would be under investigation, or even closed down.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. The ability to remove the head mid-term is both, as is the inability to easily do so.
quote:

BTW, just who arethe adults? There's a mad kid on the block, as anyone can see, but...

IJ

It's politics, lad. Adults do not get elected.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
'Lad'? That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me today... [Razz]

But yes, point taken.

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Martin-
Foundational: the triumph of commerce over people.

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
When someone wants to continually brag about his I.Q., something is seriously wrong.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When someone wants to continually brag about his I.Q., something is seriously wrong.

It is like class; if you brag about your own, it is probably fairly low.

[ 10. October 2017, 16:44: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If the White House is an 'adult day care centre', it's not doing a very good job. In this country, it would be under investigation, or even closed down.

BTW, just who arethe adults? There's a mad kid on the block, as anyone can see, but...

Depending on how far you want to trust Politico's various sources (many of whom are former Trump staffers, so they'd know but would also want to polish their own public images), it goes something like this:

quote:
As White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus mused to associates that telling President Donald Trump no was usually not an effective strategy. Telling him “next week” was often the better idea.

Trump would impulsively want to fire someone like Attorney General Jeff Sessions; create a new, wide–ranging policy with far–flung implications, like increasing tariffs on Chinese steel imports; or end a decades–old deal like the North American Free Trade Agreement. Enraged with a TV segment or frustrated after a meandering meeting, the president would order it done immediately.

Delaying the decision would give Priebus and others a chance to change his mind or bring in advisers to speak with Trump — and in some cases, to ensure Trump would drop the idea altogether and move on.


 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When someone wants to continually brag about his I.Q., something is seriously wrong.

It is like class; if you brag about your own, it is probably fairly low.
There is clip of him, doing the rounds on Twitter, bragging about how humble he is. Literally, bragging. Can't work out to link it here.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Can severely limited language skills and an incredibly restricted vocabulary go with a high IQ?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Depends on the size of the bribe, I imagine.

[ 10. October 2017, 17:48: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Can severely limited language skills and an incredibly restricted vocabulary go with a high IQ?

You mean smart stupid people? people who can demonstrate factual knowledge but cannot navigate their personal lives, and the converse, those who have limited knowledge and can navigate the interpersonal world? I would place trumpy as someone who has limited knowledge, believes he is smart, and covers over everything with a charisma. This charisma either charms or repels (I find it seedy, smarmy, rude myself). Am I wrong to think that the problem with trumpy is that his charisma actually wins over some people who have enough knowledge to know he's playing them? Though wrestling, horoscopes, some forms of faith healing are also appealing to people who are willing to set intellect aside. Hell, it is even possible to convince young people that joining military forces and learning to kill other human beings will be fun. You can even earn a degree whilst doing so.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Mensa offers Trump and Tillerson an IQ test.

Personally I'd rather it was an eating contest, maybe hot chili peppers.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Martin-
Foundational: the triumph of commerce over people.

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

Exactly. Rational. Normal, historical, human, legal abuse of power.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Mensa offers Trump and Tillerson an IQ test.

But if they were to take the test, and the inevitable happens, you know it will be declared a FAKE test, and Mensa will be a FAILING organization. (And, possibly, Hillary and Obama will somehow be at fault.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
When someone wants to continually brag about his I.Q., something is seriously wrong.

It is like class; if you brag about your own, it is probably fairly low.
There is clip of him, doing the rounds on Twitter, bragging about how humble he is. Literally, bragging. Can't work out to link it here.
You're welcome?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
An excellent, and free, summary of the situation as it now stands.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
chorleywooded bread

I might agree with most of your list, but what do you have against the Chorleywood process?
It produces an exceptionally soft bread within which the protein molecules are all shattered into very short chains, it requires the addition of large amounts of sugar, yeast, often additives, and the product stales quickly. Inferior massed produced startch in many cases. (I've baked for 35 years)
Really? American bread tastes very very very "different". This must be why.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I agree that Trump is a normal, mostly rational person who should never have been elected President of the United States. For that, I blame the Republican Party, the banks who rescued him from financial ruin in the 1990's, the people who hired him to play the boss on The Apprentice, the people who voted for him and who I do not know personally, Jeb Bush, Vlad Putin, the American business community, Facebook and Google, the Supreme Court Judge who died and myself.

Edit: James Comey, Hilary Clinton and the Democrats and Romanlion

[ 11. October 2017, 00:47: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I disagree. Trump is far from rational. And far from normal.

He is a Narcissist. I believe he is a sexual predator, He is extremely volatile. He has defrauded many people.

No, he is not normal. No, he is not rational.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Really? American bread tastes very very very "different". This must be why.

I can't speak to American bread or flour. Don't know it at all. I do know that hard Canadian spring wheat (all purpose flour) has more gluten than any other including American and European. Europeans get closest when they use "strong flour" but it still contains some soft wheats (~25%) whereas Canadian contains all hard. Americans doe the same. I found bread in London to be reasonably similar to the commercial bread in Canada but loaves are slightly denser and smaller (bought in chain groceries).

The difference in making of bread commercially is the rushing of the process, whereas traditional bread may take 2-3 days. You can find traditionally made bread in all countries, it is handled differently and produces a different product.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I disagree. Trump is far from rational. And far from normal.

He is a Narcissist. I believe he is a sexual predator, He is extremely volatile. He has defrauded many people.

No, he is not normal. No, he is not rational.

Normal then.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Not normal, but also not unique.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Far from it. Which is normal.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
How can you possibly think that narcissism and being a sexual predator is not utterly run-of-the-mill among rich men? It's not universal by any means, but it is certainly in plague proportions.

We used to let it slide because we were part of an insufficiently challenged patriarchy. But how many American Presidents and public figures would have been on the Ashley Madison site if it had been around in their day? I understand Martin Luther King Jr would have, and he is not on his Pat Malone.

A little less than half of voting Americans let it slide this time (instead of crucifying him like what happened to Gary Hart et al) because they hated Hilary Clinton's guts, and by association everything she believes in, the stupid bastards.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How can you possibly think that narcissism and being a sexual predator is not utterly run-of-the-mill among rich men? It's not universal by any means, but it is certainly in plague proportions.

We used to let it slide because we were part of an insufficiently challenged patriarchy. But how many American Presidents and public figures would have been on the Ashley Madison site if it had been around in their day? I understand Martin Luther King Jr would have, and he is not on his Pat Malone.

A little less than half of voting Americans let it slide this time (instead of crucifying him like what happened to Gary Hart et al) because they hated Hilary Clinton's guts, and by association everything she believes in, the stupid bastards.

Can you imagine how hard Trump laughed when he realised he didn't have to quit over pussygate. Bastard.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is only marginally helpful to cite the past. We agree that mores have changed; what passed in thee 1950s and 1960s can well be impossible now. Dinosaurs (among whom we can include Liddle Donny and Weinstein) are, or were, unchanging as times changed around them, and couldn't adapt.
We must deal with the present. I am good with prosecution of crimes. Yes, Weinstein raped a woman; jail sounds fine to me and there's even a Hollywood tradition of producers using the penitentiary as a springboard to greatness. (Before you ask: Springtime for Hitler) People have been trying to get traction on prosecuting Lyin' Don for years, maybe now the tires will bite and we'll get somewhere.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
BUT:

Brenda, In the main I agree. The problem is that we -- the American people -- are putting eggs in the wrong basket when and while we wait on the President to take a bridge too far (that bridge is likely in Brooklyn and up for sale), or for Congress to "do something," or the Cabinet to "do something," or Mueller to "do something."

Yes, "something" must be done. Longstanding foreign alliances are cracking. The rule of law at home is fracturing. Racism, sexism, classism, and domestic terrorism are on the rise. This administration is fleecing taxpayers, depriving citizens of basic rights, and on and on.

This is on us. We're the ones who have to "do something." A substantial minority of us catapulted this loose cannonball into office, and it's time for the Mad-as-hell Majority to surround the White House with pitchforks and torches and demand regime change.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Those of you who had "Carter Page" in your office betting pool as the first Trump campaign/administration official to plead the Fifth, please collect your winnings.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How can you possibly think that narcissism and being a sexual predator is not utterly run-of-the-mill among rich men? It's not universal by any means, but it is certainly in plague proportions.

We used to let it slide because we were part of an insufficiently challenged patriarchy. But how many American Presidents and public figures would have been on the Ashley Madison site if it had been around in their day? I understand Martin Luther King Jr would have, and he is not on his Pat Malone.

A little less than half of voting Americans let it slide this time (instead of crucifying him like what happened to Gary Hart et al) because they hated Hilary Clinton's guts, and by association everything she believes in, the stupid bastards.

I get your point, but bristle at the false equivalence.

Bill Clinton, (possibly MLK) and the Ashley Madison clients committed adultery-- immoral, a breach of trust, a sin. But not a crime. Even someone like myself whose first marriage broke up under similar circumstances do not think it should be illegal.

Weinstein and POTUS, otoh, are accused of sexual assault. Non-consensual sexual activity. That is a much, much more serious criminal allegation-- and it was just as illegal (if more selectively prosecuted) in 1980 as it is today.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Bill Clinton, (possibly MLK) and the Ashley Madison clients committed adultery-- immoral, a breach of trust, a sin. But not a crime. Even someone like myself whose first marriage broke up under similar circumstances do not think it should be illegal.

Weinstein and POTUS, otoh, are accused of sexual assault.

Of course you know that Bill Clinton was credibly accused of rape and sexual assault by multiple women, right?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There are unproven accusations against Clinton, however [... listen to the chorus]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
A special prosecutor looked into the claims against Clinton and concluded there was not enough evidence to bring any charges against him.

A special investigator is looking into Trump, but his mandate does not include looking into any sexual allegations against him.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
BUT:


Yes, "something" must be done. Longstanding foreign alliances are cracking. The rule of law at home is fracturing. Racism, sexism, classism, and domestic terrorism are on the rise. This administration is fleecing taxpayers, depriving citizens of basic rights, and on and on.

This is on us. We're the ones who have to "do something." A substantial minority of us catapulted this loose cannonball into office, and it's time for the Mad-as-hell Majority to surround the White House with pitchforks and torches and demand regime change.

The most cheering reply I can make to this I saw in the Post today -- it is a scant 390 days to the 2018 elections.
I would hesitate long and think very hard before resorting to force. That's what he wants, you know -- a Kristallnacht, an excuse to impose martial law. There's nothing he would adore more than calling out the troops and standing on the reviewing stand, doubtless with one arm raised.
We must not give it to him. Because he's a loose cannon, a monkey with no more grasp of the Constitution than my cat, we must do this right.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I understand Martin Luther King Jr would have

Your post is seriously fucked up. All the out and abuse to choose from and you pick MLK? Really?
The worst he did, if the allegations are true, is commit infidelity. Not defending that, if it happened.
We are talking about narcissism and abuse and sexual predators and this is your example?
What the serious fuck?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Because he's a loose cannon, a monkey with no more grasp of the Constitution than my cat, we must do this right.

On behalf of your cat, I must object to the comparison.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
we must do this right.

The problem is that the "right" ways are CLOSED TO US. Congress is worried, but either not worried enough to act, or too scared to do so. They have too much on the line.

Ditto the cabinet.

Mueller? Who knows? He's keeping his cards, if indeed he has any, very close to his chest. He's careful and cautious, which is great; but he's also slow. Even if he ultimately produces obstruction-of-justice charges (or something else in that vein), the damage done in the meantime may be irreparable.

Those are the "right ways." The remaining "right way" -- a Democratic sweep of both houses of Congress in the midterms -- is (A) highly improbable (gerrymandering, vote suppression, Russian hacking, etc.) and (B), given that 44.2 has already alienated both houses and both parties and yet proceeds merrily along enriching himself, his kin, and his cronies at taxpayer expense despite this, is unlikely to alter a thing.

While I agree that actual armed uprising is ill-advised (and probably impossible anyway), something like a mass general strike and mass demonstrations may be needed to put the fear of unemployment into Congress before the midterms.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A special prosecutor looked into the claims against Clinton and concluded there was not enough evidence to bring any charges against him.

A special investigator is looking into Trump, but his mandate does not include looking into any sexual allegations against him.

Exactly.

If credible evidence is ever brought against Clinton I would of course call for him to be brought to justice, both in criminal charges and any civil suit. I don't see the right being so even-handed about Trump.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A cri de coeur from the incomparable Charles Pierce. This should be a free click. Oh, would that he would save us!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Come Barack, Obama - Usania hath need of thee!

Could he? Might he?

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How can you possibly think that narcissism and being a sexual predator is not utterly run-of-the-mill among rich men? It's not universal by any means, but it is certainly in plague proportions.

We used to let it slide because we were part of an insufficiently challenged patriarchy. But how many American Presidents and public figures would have been on the Ashley Madison site if it had been around in their day? I understand Martin Luther King Jr would have, and he is not on his Pat Malone.

A little less than half of voting Americans let it slide this time (instead of crucifying him like what happened to Gary Hart et al) because they hated Hilary Clinton's guts, and by association everything she believes in, the stupid bastards.

I get your point, but bristle at the false equivalence.

Bill Clinton, (possibly MLK) and the Ashley Madison clients committed adultery-- immoral, a breach of trust, a sin. But not a crime. Even someone like myself whose first marriage broke up under similar circumstances do not think it should be illegal.

Weinstein and POTUS, otoh, are accused of sexual assault. Non-consensual sexual activity. That is a much, much more serious criminal allegation-- and it was just as illegal (if more selectively prosecuted) in 1980 as it is today.

Yep. VERY good point.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I understand Martin Luther King Jr would have

Your post is seriously fucked up. All the out and abuse to choose from and you pick MLK? Really?
The worst he did, if the allegations are true, is commit infidelity. Not defending that, if it happened.
We are talking about narcissism and abuse and sexual predators and this is your example?
What the serious fuck?

Chill. I said MLK would have been on the Ashley Madison site.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How can you possibly think that narcissism and being a sexual predator is not utterly run-of-the-mill among rich men? . . .

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I understand Martin Luther King Jr would have

Your post is seriously fucked up. All the out and abuse to choose from and you pick MLK? Really?
The worst he did, if the allegations are true, is commit infidelity. Not defending that, if it happened.
We are talking about narcissism and abuse and sexual predators and this is your example?
What the serious fuck?

Chill. I said MLK would have been on the Ashley Madison site.
If you're going to preface your statement by saying you're talking about sexual predators, including MLK in your list is a whole lot of false equivalence. As would be most of Ashley Madison's clients, for that matter. Or Gary Hart, even.

Equating sexual infidelity (or even just the catch-all category of "sex I don't like") with sexual assault is one of the most common and cheapest moves of sex abuse apologists. It conveniently changes the subject and obfuscates the actions of predators.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Really? American bread tastes very very very "different". This must be why.

Apparently 80% of UK bread is made with the Chorleywood process, as is a similar proportion of Australian bread. So I don't think you can blame the general anodyne sweetness of American bread on Chorleywood.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Because he's a loose cannon, a monkey with no more grasp of the Constitution than my cat, we must do this right.

On behalf of your cat, I must object to the comparison.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He's coming. Please feel free to do something about this. He loathes crowds holding protest signs and wearing pink hats.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A special prosecutor looked into the claims against Clinton and concluded there was not enough evidence to bring any charges against him.

A special investigator is looking into Trump, but his mandate does not include looking into any sexual allegations against him.

The Starr Chamber went waaaaay beyond its mandate.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Chill. I said MLK would have been on the Ashley Madison site.

If you're going to preface your statement by saying you're talking about sexual predators, including MLK in your list is a whole lot of false equivalence. As would be most of Ashley Madison's clients, for that matter. Or Gary Hart, even.

Equating sexual infidelity (or even just the catch-all category of "sex I don't like") with sexual assault is one of the most common and cheapest moves of sex abuse apologists. It conveniently changes the subject and obfuscates the actions of predators.

The context of your comment about MLK wasn't clear, simontoad. And, given long-running and exacerbated racial tensions and injustice in the US, and all the people who deeply revere Dr. King, it's usually extremely unwise to criticize him. Especially if the criticizer isn't black. And is from another country, and doesn't get the social history and nuances. FYI.

And what Croesos said above.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He's coming. Please feel free to do something about this. He loathes crowds holding protest signs and wearing pink hats.

Will he get to ride in a golden carriage?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
More "fun".
[Roll Eyes]

“I Hate Everyone in the White House!”: Trump Seethes as Advisers Fear the President Is “Unraveling” (Vanity Fair).

quote:
In recent days, I’ve spoken with a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers, and they all describe a White House in crisis as advisers struggle to contain a president that seems to be increasingly unfocused and consumed by dark moods."

"Trump Threatens to Pull NBC Off the Air Over Scathing Story": Luckily, he doesn’t have the power to do anything about it." (Vanity Fair).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Chill. I said MLK would have been on the Ashley Madison site.

You began the post speaking of sexual predators and narcissism. Bring MLK into that same post is ludicrous.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
given long-running and exacerbated racial tensions and injustice in the US, and all the people who deeply revere Dr. King, it's usually extremely unwise to criticize him.

Anyone is fair game for criticism that is apropos. A problem is that there is much lying and misrepresentation. And irrelevance.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
lB--

I was saying what I've observed in my American culture, over many years, when people talk about Dr. King.

Making the comment he did, in the way that he did, and saying "chill" when Americans reacted negatively, IMHO, showed that simontoad didn't get it, didn't care, or wasn't paying attention.

So I used it as an opportunity for education. [Biased]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I am thinking the sexual allegations against Weinstein, and, now, Ben Affleck are getting as much press as they are because the Groper in Chief has seemingly gotten away with it. I actually hope the special investigator will look at the sexual allegations against the Don.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Could there be any connection between El Supremo's revamped visit to London and the announcement that H.M. is cutting back on her royal duties?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I am thinking the sexual allegations against Weinstein, and, now, Ben Affleck are getting as much press as they are because the Groper in Chief has seemingly gotten away with it. I actually hope the special investigator will look at the sexual allegations against the Don.

I am not defending Affleck, but it seems to me that the things has admitted to doing are on a different level to those being currently aired about others.

And this is part of the problem - how the conversation rolls everything into the same "he did x? well, this-other-guy did y and I didn't hear you talking about it.."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He's coming. Please feel free to do something about this. He loathes crowds holding protest signs and wearing pink hats.

Will he get to ride in a golden carriage?
If I were HM I would fall canny sick, in the grand Elizabethan style. Failing that, carry the -big- handbag. Hold it front and center, always. And is there any point in having Coldstream Guards if you can't get any use out of them? A couple of big ones, in their bearskin busbys, holding bayonets at the ready, would do.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Golden Key, if that first Vanity Fair article is true, it explains a lot of the cabinet shuffling--trying to get rid of the people who would 25th him while not shuffling so much that he can't pretend he's running the country--I can't tell whether it's just liberal hope/worry though.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It seems unfair to our dear Queen to foist The Deranged Dotard on her, though a 'working visit' may reduce her ordeal to a minimum.

Perhaps by the time a full state visit comes round, she'll have abdicated, or TDD will have been impeached/dethroned/imprisoned (or all three).

I'd like to see very small 'crowds', all kitted out with pink pussy hats, placards, etc., standing with their backs to him.

That would piss him off in a bigly manner, no?

[Devil]

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It seems unfair to our dear Queen to foist The Deranged Dotard on her, though a 'working visit' may reduce her ordeal to a minimum.

Perhaps by the time a full state visit comes round, she'll have abdicated, or TDD will have been impeached/dethroned/imprisoned (or all three).

I'd like to see very small 'crowds', all kitted out with pink pussy hats, placards, etc., standing with their backs to him.

That would piss him off in a bigly manner, no?

[Devil]

IJ

Perhaps they will even "take a knee" in a gesture of prayer & mourning for their former colony.

(as for me, I'm memorizing the words to "God Save the Queen..."_
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The prime minister of Canada is currently visiting the psycho-Tweeter. There's this thing called NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) involving Canada, USA and Mexico. Finger-man wants to throw Mexico under the bus and see about bilateral trade, and in other news the UK is apparently interested in joining NAFTA. aMAYzing
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps they will even "take a knee" in a gesture of prayer & mourning for their former colony.

If they kneel as he passes, you know he'll misinterpret that!
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Trump really, really is a terrible boss, and I don't know whether to admire his cabinet for staying for the sake of the country, or whether to admonish them for enabling his terrible behavior.

If my boss openly, criticized my job in public like Trump did when he tweeted that Tillerson was wasting his time negotiating with North Korea, I would immediately resign. As a manager, if you have a problem with what your underlings are doing, you should tell them in private and/or change things so that your underlings would end up doing things the way you want them to.

To openly disparage your employees in public, is a grievous violation of the employer/employee relationship, and should result in employees quitting out of a sense of their dignity.

My pious dream and hope is that everyone who works for Trump quits, and Trump ends up actually having to do all the work. Because the President has a terrible work ethic, the thought of actually expounding effort would be the thing that might make him resign.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am not defending Affleck, but it seems to me that the things has admitted to doing are on a different level to those being currently aired about others.

They are on a different level, but stem from the same problem. It is an abuse of the power dynamic that is especially, but not exclusively, aimed at women.

*I include Terry Crewes' revelation not to say that this is an equal opportunity abuse, but to show that if even a strong male feels difficulty in confronting the abuse, think of what it is like for women.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Given the toxic swamp that the White House must be as a working environment, one can only suppose that the poor staff stay on simply because they have mortgages and families, and need the $$$.

How long, I wonder, would the Barking Dog last if everyone threw in the towel?

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They are on a different level, but stem from the same problem. It is an abuse of the power dynamic that is especially, but not exclusively, aimed at women.

*I include Terry Crewes' revelation not to say that this is an equal opportunity abuse, but to show that if even a strong male feels difficulty in confronting the abuse, think of what it is like for women.

I don't know, I'm not in Hollywood so I can't accurately parse what is going on. But it sounds to me that there is a whole lot of power games being played between highly paid actors, and together with a generally sexually permissive culture means that drunkenly touching people on the bottom becomes normalised.

I could be proven wrong by events, of course but it sounds to me that the Afflick story is one of stupid and inappropriate fratboy behaviours that he now regrets whereas the Weinstein (and to be honest also the Trump) allegations are of much worse things.

Incidentally the Terry Crewes story is interesting for a number of reasons. First, he is a big guy so the mind boggles a bit as to what the heck could have happened at a party with his own wife there.

Second, Crewes has been very open with his struggles with a self-identified porn addiction. I only mention this because it is possible that he is now very sensitive to situations where others might not notice things (or possibly do not think they are abnormal).
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... a generally sexually permissive culture ...

Sexual permissiveness <> no consent.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
That's true. I'm just saying certain behaviours might have become normalised.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know, I'm not in Hollywood so I can't accurately parse what is going on. But it sounds to me that there is a whole lot of power games being played between highly paid actors, and together with a generally sexually permissive culture means that drunkenly touching people on the bottom becomes normalised.

It isn't restricted to the film industry, the power dynamic problem exists anywhere there is a power differential. And the other barriers for reporting sexual abuse are everywhere.
The film industry is worse in that how one gets hired or blacklisted is much more arbitrary, interconnected and easier to hide. It is who you know and who is willing to know you. At every level, from the production company down.
And it isn't "power games being played between highly paid actors, and together with a generally sexually permissive culture", it is powerful men thinking that their power allows them privilege.

[ 12. October 2017, 17:38: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And it isn't "power games being played between highly paid actors, and together with a generally sexually permissive culture", it is powerful men thinking that their power allows them privilege.

Well I think there are possibly two different things - actors drunkenly doing things with each other and powerful men thinking that they can sexually abuse people with impunity.

That doesn't mean that the things actors do to each other are right, but that's a different thing.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
More "fun".
[Roll Eyes]

“I Hate Everyone in the White House!”: Trump Seethes as Advisers Fear the President Is “Unraveling” (Vanity Fair).

A "fun" game you can play with Mr. Sherman's article is count how many words or phrases can be interpreted as euphemisms for dementia. I get eight.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I dunno: unless you count versions of "White House aides are worried," I only find six.

That's OK, though. I wrote an open letter to Ivanka for my local paper months ago, with advice about broaching the Dreaded Conversation with one's elderly loved one that it's time to hang up the spurs and get help.

Donald's not the only autocratic, elderly, seat-of-the-pants, never-listening, nano-second-attention-span, my-way-or-the-highway parent on the US landscape; he's just the only one who currently happens to be president.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Goodbye UNESCO.

And from Israel too.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Oh, further reading gives me:
quote:
The US has previously split with UNESCO during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, only to return in 2003 under George W. Bush.
Interesting.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Gwai--

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Golden Key, if that first Vanity Fair article is true, it explains a lot of the cabinet shuffling--trying to get rid of the people who would 25th him while not shuffling so much that he can't pretend he's running the country--I can't tell whether it's just liberal hope/worry though.

Maybe, although T reportedly didn't know about the 25th until Steve Bannon told him. (Don't know when that was.)

It might be that, since he can't take criticism or even disagreement, he just can't keep people around who don't fit in his "I am a winner and the center of all things, therefore I'm worth being loved" world.

I really, really want him to resign. But, surfing around, I saw various articles suggesting that an impeachment move is in the works.

I want him out, SOON, non-violently and legally. I might be willing to bend a bit about ethically.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
And then there is the tweet storm he sent out about Puerto Rico, saying FEMA, the military, and the first responders cannot stay in Puerto Rico forever....

Meanwhile, FEMA is still in New Orleans after Katrina (that was 12 years ago). FEMA is still in New Jersey after Sandy (four years ago).

I wonder how long they will be in Houston or Florida, or California.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
If it is dementia there’s every chance it will rapidly get worse.

We can but hope.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I don't wish it on anyone, but if it gets him out...

I heard low-price health plans are on the agenda? I guess those with existing conditions or the elderly will have their premiums go up.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
HM will not abdicate, Bishop's Finger. She vowed on her accession to devote the rest of her life to serving her people. Delegation of duties, or a diplomatic illness, are more likely.
Meanswile the Palace staff are probably counting the spoons . .
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I think HM's decision to retire from wreath laying may have more to do with Prince Philip's decision to retire from public engagements other than those where he is with her - and at 96 he has decided that standing in a chill wind and then laying his wreath is a bridge too far. Its not unreasonable that HM has decided to stay with him, though I'm surprised they've decided to observe from the FO balcony - I'd rather expected they'd choose to be seated in a carriage.

As for any Trump visit: I've long thought that the PoW and Camilla were a better bet if some of the royals must entertain the orange one. And with the Duchess of Cambridge being pregnant they can avoid her having to cope with any tiny wandering hands because she can plead illness [Biased]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
she can plead illness [Biased]

Pre-existing condition at that.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lB--

I was saying what I've observed in my American culture, over many years, when people talk about Dr. King.

Making the comment he did, in the way that he did, and saying "chill" when Americans reacted negatively, IMHO, showed that simontoad didn't get it, didn't care, or wasn't paying attention.

So I used it as an opportunity for education. [Biased]

And I thank you for that.

Lil Buddha was right. The post was fucked up. I got all giggly when I remembered the Ashley Madison song and judgement went out the window. Including MLK and Gary Hart was an attempt to show off about my fantastic knowledge of American political history. I got what I deserved.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I hope Camilla has a big handbag. She's famously no ten, and so Liddle Donny will probably leave her alone. He's only interested in beautiful women; if you aren't hot you're invisible.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lB--

I was saying what I've observed in my American culture, over many years, when people talk about Dr. King.

Making the comment he did, in the way that he did, and saying "chill" when Americans reacted negatively, IMHO, showed that simontoad didn't get it, didn't care, or wasn't paying attention.

So I used it as an opportunity for education. [Biased]

And I thank you for that.

Lil Buddha was right. The post was fucked up. I got all giggly when I remembered the Ashley Madison song and judgement went out the window. Including MLK and Gary Hart was an attempt to show off about my fantastic knowledge of American political history. I got what I deserved.

Never thought I'd be saying this to you, but, well done.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Even Uber Conservative Rush Limbaugh is expressing concern that with the NFL tirades, Trump is acting like a dictator.

Three examples of how dictatorial Trump is in the last 24 hours:

Signing an executive order allowing companies to find policies that are not in compliance with the Affordable Care Act and allowing insurance companies to sell them across state lines. A number of state insurance commissioners are not happy about this since approval of insurance programs is considered a state right.

Signing an executive order eliminating insurance subsidies for low-income people. Look for insurance companies to sue over that since that is a contractual obligation.

Decertifying Iran, saying it is out of compliance with the treaty that six nations signed. This in spite of the fact all indications Iran is in compliance, Trump's military advisors have argued for the treaty, and none of the other signatories are going along with Trump's decertification.

Did I mention Trump threatening to pull NBC's broadcasting license (he can't since there is no such license)?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Maybe, although T reportedly didn't know about the 25th until Steve Bannon told him. (Don't know when that was.)...

Bannon should have called it the Air Force One amendment.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
And then there is the tweet storm he sent out about Puerto Rico, saying FEMA, the military, and the first responders cannot stay in Puerto Rico forever....

Meanwhile, FEMA is still in New Orleans after Katrina (that was 12 years ago). FEMA is still in New Jersey after Sandy (four years ago).

I wonder how long they will be in Houston or Florida, or California.

Whilst I doubt Cheeto has any clue as to how the process actually works, those FEMA still in New Orleans and New Jersey are not first responders. They are managing the process of rebuilding.
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

Lil Buddha was right. The post was fucked up. I got all giggly when I remembered the Ashley Madison song and judgement went out the window. Including MLK and Gary Hart was an attempt to show off about my fantastic knowledge of American political history. I got what I deserved.

[Ultra confused] Kudos for this post.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I saw an interesting item ("All In With Chris Hayes" on MSNBC) about Trump as a golfer. Apparently he has been accused by eyewitnesses of cheating many times over. I cannot say I am surprised. Does he play other games such as bridge or poker? Does he ever gamble in his own casinos?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He has also been filmed driving his golf cart onto the greens. I don't play and don't know why this is bad, but golfers howl at it.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Trump was quoted on CNN.com today as saying: "We are stopping cold the war on Judeo-Christian values."

Leaving aside the question of whether he understands the phrase or exemplifies it, let's ask: What is meant by the phrase "Judeo-Christian values"? Is there an established, well-known list of such values? Is this a reference to specifically the 10 Commandments or to the golden rule (which is found in other religions as well) or to monotheism? Is this phrase ever not misused? (Maybe this needs to be a separate thread.)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Translate: "the goals of older white men."
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And now... "President Trump Doesn’t Know He’s the President of the U.S. Virgin Islands" (Yahoo).

Someone needs to get him a huge, tactile map of the US and possessions, with labels about leaders and relationships. I don't know if he could process that, but worth a try. It could also be that his mind defaults to generics. Mine sometimes does. So the leader of a "foreign" place he doesn't really understand is labeled "president".

Just below, there are links to other relevant articles, like FEMA telling Puerto Rico not to listen to T.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I believe this will work even if you're not on Facebook: Robert Reich interviews an ex-member of Congress. This is terrifying, folks. I knew it had to get worse before it could get better, but it's scary.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, Brenda - yes, it did work for those of us who eschew the Book of Face.
quote:
Trump’s not just a moron. He’s a despicable human being. And he’s getting crazier. Paranoid. Unhinged. Everyone knows it. I mean, we’re in shit up to our eyeballs with this guy.
I don't think I'll bother starting to read War and Peace....

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
He has also been filmed driving his golf cart onto the greens. I don't play and don't know why this is bad, but golfers howl at it.
Brenda

Have you ever lawn bowled, or played croquet? What do you think would happen to your play if you had to roll your ball through a depression caused by a tire?

Maybe I did not have to mansplain this. [Razz]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
quote:
He has also been filmed driving his golf cart onto the greens. I don't play and don't know why this is bad, but golfers howl at it.
Brenda

Have you ever lawn bowled, or played croquet? What do you think would happen to your play if you had to roll your ball through a depression caused by a tire?

Maybe I did not have to mansplain this. [Razz]

No, I've never played croquet either. The number of things I have never done is very large. Nor do I ever watch either sport on TV.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The USA is on the brink of pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement. The USA can no longer be relied on for any international agreement. Which is very serious.

The above is approximately what the Swedish government said.

He's provoking 2 nations. Which will be third?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The USA can no longer be relied on for any international agreement.

Sadly, that has been true for decades. The polarization of American politics means that, as each party gets control of the White House, the international agreements entered into by the previous administration get revoked. It is not just Trump revoking Obama-era agreements. GWB revoked a lot of Clinton-era agreements, and I think (but my memory is foggy) Clinton backed out of things that Reagan/Bush agreed to. President Obama actually carried through on GWB's promise to withdraw troops from Iraq--and Republicans lambasted him for doing it!! How dare he keep a promise!??!?!?! How outrageous that he kept America's word in a deal??!?!?!??!?

That is the reality of American politics. It isn't a Trump thing. It is our damn stupid politician thing. Why any country trust the US to honor its agreements baffles me. If I were in charge of a foreign country, I would only agree to deals that expire during the term of the current President--because it almost certainly will be revoked with the next administration.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Trump was quoted on CNN.com today as saying: "We are stopping cold the war on Judeo-Christian values."

Leaving aside the question of whether he understands the phrase or exemplifies it, let's ask: What is meant by the phrase "Judeo-Christian values"? Is there an established, well-known list of such values? Is this a reference to specifically the 10 Commandments or to the golden rule (which is found in other religions as well) or to monotheism? Is this phrase ever not misused? (Maybe this needs to be a separate thread.)

He is stopping cold the war on Judeo-Christian values by defeating them once and for all. Individualism, consumerism, and sheer, raw greed had them on the mat for centuries, but it took Trump's ascendency to power with the nodding approval of a host of my fellow evangelicals to really deliver the knockout blow.

War over. Moloch won.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Deutsche Welle has this to say.

quote:
Donald Trump played the strongman....pulled an old trick out of the bag, one that he had so gladly used in his previous life as a businessman and reality TV star. He simply redefined the rules of the game, according to his own terms....the damage has been done. The writing on the wall is that agreements made with the United States are not worth the paper on which they are written,
The word "pompous" is used. Germans are restrained. Time to isolate America? If it doesn't do some thing about this man?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, I've never played croquet either. The number of things I have never done is very large. Nor do I ever watch either sport on TV.

Now I have the nightmarish thought that some barmy sports channel is televising live professional croquet matches.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
More "fun".
[Roll Eyes]

“I Hate Everyone in the White House!”: Trump Seethes as Advisers Fear the President Is “Unraveling” (Vanity Fair).

A "fun" game you can play with Mr. Sherman's article is count how many words or phrases can be interpreted as euphemisms for dementia. I get eight.
Separately, Sen. Corker's "adult day care" comment might not refer to T being as immature as a kid, but to the kind of adult day care center that's primarily for adults with dementia. They can have opportunities for some fun, and their caregivers get some downtime.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
[qb]Now I have the nightmarish thought that some barmy sports channel is televising live professional croquet matches.

Your wish is my command World championship croquet. Mallet to head?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I know I only have myself to blame, but after watching a little bit I suspect YouTube will be recommending me croquet videos from now on... Or demanding I finish watching that one.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Hillary Clinton compares Weinstein to Trump.

Anything more obvious? Weinstein got fired. Facing criminal charges. Slinking off to "treatment". That other guy? Make America great again.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, I've never played croquet either. The number of things I have never done is very large. Nor do I ever watch either sport on TV.

Now I have the nightmarish thought that some barmy sports channel is televising live professional croquet matches.
I played backyard croquet when I was a kid, so I might actually enjoy that! [Biased]

Though I think amateurs--or even kids--would be more fun. "The Backyard Croquet Channel".
[Cool]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Addendum:

If you search YouTube for "backyard croquet", you'll get a lot of hits. Like "Monster Croquet" and "Croquet: The Backyard Blood Sport". I've also heard of extreme croquet, a version you play in rough country.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Goodness. Is all-white dress regulation wear for Croquet Heroes?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Hillary Clinton compares Weinstein to Trump.

Anything more obvious? Weinstein got fired. Facing criminal charges. Slinking off to "treatment". That other guy? Make America great again.

Even though I voted for this woman, I'm afraid it's time for Hillary to Shut Up. She is not helping. Anybody.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ohher--

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Goodness. Is all-white dress regulation wear for Croquet Heroes?

AIUI, it's standard for formal games--courtesy of the other side of the Pond, perhaps.
[Biased]

We used to have a local group who dressed and played that way in Golden Gate Park. Don't know if they're still around.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Why are Europe and Canada the last bastions of liberal civilization?

I ask prompted by the axis of evil that is the US, Saudi et al and Israel demonizing Iran, which admittedly is fomenting unjust war in the Yemen, which little England is coining it from. Along with those nice liberal Europeans of course.

And why would Trump want to drive Turkey in to Russia's arms? Putin is an absolute genius. Le Carré was so right in Tinker, Tailor I recall: they're better than us.

[ 14. October 2017, 10:41: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O, cheer us up, why don't you...

...still, at least Putin knows what he's doing, unlike The Barking Dog...

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This week's Economist has a piece on how younger evangelicals are much less wedded to Trump than their elders, largely on the basis of their correspondent's visit to Wheaton College, Illinois.

I learned from it that some Clinton campaigners billed the election as "the first post-Christian" one, which I can see might put some Christians off voting for her.

I think the article is readable for non-subscribers if you haven't reached your limit, here.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I'd be interested if that holds true for those not-as-educated evangelicals who do not frequent such institutions.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I'd be interested if that holds true for those not-as-educated evangelicals who do not frequent such institutions.

From some of the things I've read about Wheaton, I'm not sure you'll have much of a contrast there.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This will make the denizens of this board laugh. A headline from the "My Life in Sex" column in the Life section of today's Guardian:
We have rules in swinging: no married guys cheating on their wives, no one too young or too old, and no one who supports Trump.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This week's Economist has a piece on how younger evangelicals are much less wedded to Trump than their elders, largely on the basis of their correspondent's visit to Wheaton College, Illinois.

I teach at a large evangelical college (not Wheaton) and have been saying this for years. Younger evangelicals are significantly more progressive politically and socially, while still conservative theologically. Think Shane Clairborne. After the last election, I don't expect them to self-identify as "evangelical" much longer-- the term is hopelessly tainted and they don't want anything to do with it. The irony is these younger progressive evangelicals are far closer to historic evangelicalism then their politically conservative elders

They ( younger evangelicals) give me hope
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I'd be interested if that holds true for those not-as-educated evangelicals who do not frequent such institutions.

From some of the things I've read about Wheaton, I'm not sure you'll have much of a contrast there.
Yes, it's appalling: higher training in gratuitous drive-by cheap shots is not even on the syllabus there [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Meanwhile, here's an interesting ethical twist.

Porn publisher offers $10m for information leading to Trump's impeachment.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Franklin Graham is a significant credibility problem for evangelicals. Supports trumpy criticizes Weinstein. Evangelical selective moral commentary is a real problem. It's all abortion and gays. I'm sure it's more nuanced than this but this is how it comes up in media. Hope cliffdweller is right and evangelicals can have a reboot. Or in older language, can experience conversion.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Meanwhile, here's an interesting ethical twist.

Porn publisher offers $10m for information leading to Trump's impeachment.

I cannot imagine anything that would turn up that would have an impact, can you? Li'l Donny is on record dissing POWs, preening himself about his pussy-grabbing skills, describing his daughter as a piece of ass. What more could there be that would tar him, when vats and vats of black asphalt cannot?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Meanwhile, here's an interesting ethical twist.

Porn publisher offers $10m for information leading to Trump's impeachment.

I cannot imagine anything that would turn up that would have an impact, can you? Li'l Donny is on record dissing POWs, preening himself about his pussy-grabbing skills, describing his daughter as a piece of ass. What more could there be that would tar him, when vats and vats of black asphalt cannot?
Videos of the above?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I'd link but I really don't want that search history on my PC, sorry. And I really do not want to see them again - I saw them on the news at first iirc.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps if someone could come up with a video of The Deranged Dotard having sex with a MAN ?

[Eek!]

The way the ConFundos would try to twist that would be entertaining, even if the video itself was not...

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think where it actually falls over is the 2/3 majority required in Congress.

As things stand, I predict a second term for Trump and I think the only thing liable to stop him is illness, not impeachment.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As things stand, I predict a second term for Trump and I think the only thing liable to stop him is illness, not impeachment.

Maybe not. I'm hearing more from my parents' contemporaries who voted for Trump and are terrified about his actions now. (Horse, barn door.) I'm hoping there will be enough conservatives switching to another candidate next time to assure T wins neither the popular nor the electoral college vote.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I also hope the Democrats can come up with a leader who does not inspire the hatred that Hillary did. I don't know who's even in the running, but we need a great candidate in 2020.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As things stand, I predict a second term for Trump and I think the only thing liable to stop him is illness, not impeachment.

Maybe not. I'm hearing more from my parents' contemporaries who voted for Trump and are terrified about his actions now. (Horse, barn door.) I'm hoping there will be enough conservatives switching to another candidate next time to assure T wins neither the popular nor the electoral college vote.
The only thing that will defeat him is if those who did not want him in office vote in sufficient numbers. He would have lost last time had they done so.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Hmm. Sex with a Russian? Nah. Murdering someone? Oh please. Sex with a Russian and then murdering him? Probably would award himself the Presidential Medal of Freedom. No, I have a very good imagination, and I can't see it.
What would work, perhaps, is solid proof of a crime that would send him to jail. Income tax fraud is an easy one there. Something that is egregious enough that they could not fail to convict, even if he had tantrums and threatened the witnesses/judge/prosecutors. Even if he started a war as a distraction, which of course he would.
Deep Throat told us, Follow the money. Still good advice, after all these years.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think where it actually falls over is the 2/3 majority required in Congress.

As things stand, I predict a second term for Trump and I think the only thing liable to stop him is illness, not impeachment.

Is the 2020 Republican Primaries where he might be stopped? It's been suggested (I think by Bruce Shapiro on Philip Adams' radio show Late Night Live) that Trump will be challenged if he is blamed for Republican approval ratings remaining in the toilet.

I think it is highly unlikely that the Republicans would do this, but who knows! Surely Trump would still run as an independent and wreck the right. I would laugh and laugh and laugh.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps if someone could come up with a video of The Deranged Dotard having sex with a MAN ?

[Eek!]

Back in 1973 a lot of people wanted Nixon impeached, but then we'd have been stuck with Agnew as President. My boyfriend at the time, who was definitely straight, said he'd almost be willing to be caught in a compromising position with Agnew for the good of the country. I'm happy to say that Agnew was gotten rid of by more conventional methods -- and Nixon's departure followed in due course.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think where it actually falls over is the 2/3 majority required in Congress.

As things stand, I predict a second term for Trump and I think the only thing liable to stop him is illness, not impeachment.

Is the 2020 Republican Primaries where he might be stopped? It's been suggested (I think by Bruce Shapiro on Philip Adams' radio show Late Night Live) that Trump will be challenged if he is blamed for Republican approval ratings remaining in the toilet.
I don't see why he would think that. Trump is extremely popular among Republicans; according to Gallup they give him a job approval rating of 81%, even though Americans on the whole give him only 38%.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Franklin Graham is a significant credibility problem for evangelicals. Supports trumpy criticizes Weinstein.

And is very anti-Muslim and anti-Islam.

IMNSHO, Franklin never should've taken over for his father, evangelist Billy Graham. Billy had his faults (IMHO, closeness to political power), but I don't recall him ever hearing him being *hateful*. (I grew up watching his "Crusades" (awful choice of words) on TV.)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
lB--

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The only thing that will defeat him is if those who did not want him in office vote in sufficient numbers. He would have lost last time had they done so.

We did. The problem was at the electoral college level, which is more about strategy in *where* you get the votes.

And, of course, there's Russia.
[Mad] (at Putin and the hackers)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Meanwhile.

So why hasn't Wrong-un done a space test?

He can't. Yet. He will ASAP. But it has to work first time as that closes the US window of opportunity that they wouldn't take but might on a fizzle. A huge risk. Many of China's fizzled.

And why hasn't Trump provoked war to pre-empt that?

He can't.

Even though China would not invoke the '61 pact. A conventional war would cause vast casualties despite both sides able to shelter their populations and would go locally nuclear. THAAD might stop non-ICBMs, but twin US airborne assaults on launch sites immediately after non-nuclear missile strikes would trigger nuclear mines.

Why is China still supplying the DPRK with fuel for its vast stockpiles?

It suits them to. China and Russia are perfectly happy with them having ICBMs, the tech is Chinese, as leverage against the US.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

And, of course, there's Russia.
[Mad] (at Putin and the hackers)

I think there's a huge danger making overblown claims about Russia - absent significant collaborating evidence (and not just Von Daniken/Alex Jones level 'what if' reasoning).

Ultimately Trump's victory could be said to be hinged on a few marginal races - in areas which Clinton didn't campaign particularly hard.

Perhaps Russian state sponsored actors were involved. In fact, without invoking a red scare, I'd be very surprised if they didn't attempt to be involved in the politics of countries they were opposed to (in the same way that the US has historically given succour to dissident groups and sought to influence the politics in other countries).

The idea that they suddenly discovered the magic potion that allowed them to swing an election is I think somewhat dangerous - as it diverts energy from where it can be more usefully deployed. Trump is - in many ways - the inevitable consequence of Republican party politics in the US.

Via things like Citizens United, US politics is already open to capture by the rich and the powerful - the evidence is that most of this influence is being exerted by those within the US rather than outside actors.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

And, of course, there's Russia.
[Mad] (at Putin and the hackers)

I think there's a huge danger making overblown claims about Russia - absent significant collaborating evidence (and not just Von Daniken/Alex Jones level 'what if' reasoning).
I think you mean "corroborating evidence". Though I guess it would also be evidence of collaboration with the Trump campaign. Seems a bit of a Freudian slip.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Ultimately Trump's victory could be said to be hinged on a few marginal races - in areas which Clinton didn't campaign particularly hard.

This is bullshit. The three critical states involved were Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. These provide an interesting series of test about the effect of Clinton campaign effort on electoral outcomes. Wisconsin was not particularly contested (by either campaign), mostly some ad buys late in the campaign. Michigan was more vigorously contested throughout the campaign, but mostly via an 'air war' (i.e. ad buys in local media). In Pennsylvania Clinton went all in with many rallies and personal appearances, culminating in an election eve free concert featuring Bruce Springsteen.

In other words, we've got an almost perfect 'natural experiment' about whether the level of effort by the Clinton campaign was the decisive factor in marginal states, and the results seem to indicate that it was not.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Perhaps Russian state sponsored actors were involved.

Given what we know, why qualify with "perhaps"? Trump campaign officials have admitted to meeting with representatives of the Russian government to discuss interfering in the election and have thoughtfully provided evidence to back it up, using "perhaps" seems a bit postmature.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Franklin Graham is a significant credibility problem for evangelicals. Supports trumpy criticizes Weinstein.

And is very anti-Muslim and anti-Islam.

IMNSHO, Franklin never should've taken over for his father, evangelist Billy Graham. Billy had his faults (IMHO, closeness to political power), but I don't recall him ever hearing him being *hateful*. (I grew up watching his "Crusades" (awful choice of words) on TV.)

Totally agree. And Billy was at least pretty good at admitting his own failings. Franklin, not so much.

I keep thinking about all those int'l workers working for Samaritan's Purse. I imagine they are like most working in the field of development-- educated in sociological considerations, knowing the key to community transformation is building relationships. Imagine spending your life's work living in a community, building friendships, caring about their challenges because you share them-- only to have that life's work and all those hard-won relationships wiped away by yet another one of your boss' ignorant, hateful, xenophobic and very, very public statements. It's gotta be damn hellish.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Perhaps Russian state sponsored actors were involved.

Given what we know, why qualify with "perhaps"? Trump campaign officials have admitted to meeting with representatives of the Russian government to discuss interfering in the election and have thoughtfully provided evidence to back it up, using "perhaps" seems a bit postmature.
A bit of levity, because God knows we need some:
The Room Where it Happened
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Perhaps Russian state sponsored actors were involved.

Given what we know, why qualify with "perhaps"? Trump campaign officials have admitted to meeting with representatives of the Russian government to discuss interfering in the election and have thoughtfully provided evidence to back it up, using "perhaps" seems a bit postmature.
Let me rephrase; perhaps Trumps victory was down - in part or whole - to Russian influence - but so far none of the evidence is necessarily proof of that, though there are certainly some indications in that direction.

Ultimately, it's going to be a hard sell even if all the evidence is in order, going at it piecemeal is simply going to make it easier to dismiss such allegations even if and when they are proven.

It seems far more likely to me that if the Russians interfered in this election, that it was a generic case of them interfering in all US elections, rather than a special case of them interfering in this one alone. Anyone arguing that they were the main factor in Trumps victory would have to explain why in this one alone they were so uniquely successful.

At this time it seems far more obvious that Comey and the Kochs had more to do with Trumps eventual victory than the Russians did, and there are significant - and different - issues around both that need to be addressed even if the Russians are ultimately proved to have played a major role.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It seems far more likely to me that if the Russians interfered in this election, that it was a generic case of them interfering in all US elections, rather than a special case of them interfering in this one alone.

I disagree. What we know so far seems to indicate an exceptional case of election interference by the Russian government, going far beyond anything we've seen in past American elections. As far as we know there were no major hacking efforts against the Obama, Romney, or McCain campaigns and, if there were, none of the purloined documents circulated in the press. By comparison, the contents of John Podesta's e-mail account started appearing on Wikileaks within an hour of the release of Trump's "pussy grabber" tape. Quelle coincidence!

Maybe there was a metabolism in Russian cyber-capabilities between 2012 and 2016, though I think it's more likely that there was simply a strong Russian preference for Trump that there wasn't for Romney, McCain, or Obama. I think it behooves any analysis of Russian hacking in the 2016 election to ask why this might be.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Anyone arguing that they were the main factor in Trumps victory would have to explain why in this one alone they were so uniquely successful.

At this time it seems far more obvious that Comey and the Kochs had more to do with Trumps eventual victory than the Russians did, and there are significant - and different - issues around both that need to be addressed even if the Russians are ultimately proved to have played a major role.

Complex events have complex causes, and trying to tease out the one single factor that determined everything is a fool's errand.

On the other hand, I suggest that it should not be a matter of indifference to Americans that an often-hostile foreign government seems both willing and able to perform what is essentially a more successful online version of the Watergate burglary. Why you seemingly take the contrary position is a bit baffling.

[ 16. October 2017, 16:50: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

I disagree. What we know so far seems to indicate an exceptional case of election interference by the Russian government, going far beyond anything we've seen in past American elections.

We know nothing of the sort. We have a bunch of disconnected dots and then some unsubstantiated claims by various people/organisations that are part of or linked to the state. Some of whom have in the past made great hay out of stirring up red scares or have fallen out with the Russian regime post Yelstin.

Which is not to say that all or part of the accusations may not be true - but that merits very careful and thorough investigation to build a case, rather than random accusations Maddow-style flights of fancy.

quote:

On the other hand, I suggest that it should not be a matter of indifference to Americans that an often-hostile foreign government seems both willing and able to perform what is essentially a more successful online version of the Watergate burglary. Why you seemingly take the contrary position is a bit baffling.

See above regarding very careful investigation. When the final denouement comes you better have every single last point crossed off, because they will scream foul. If there is one thing the extremes of the Republican movement know how to do it's harnessing resentment (this is the natural ground of Lost-Causers after all), and any notion of a Lost Presidency will animate them for decades.

In the meantime, there are plenty of other battles to fight; against voter suppresion, gerrymandering at the county and national level, the fallout from Citizens United, and the baleful influence of a few billionaires in national politics.

[ 16. October 2017, 20:17: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It seems far more likely to me that if the Russians interfered in this election, that it was a generic case of them interfering in all US elections, rather than a special case of them interfering in this one alone.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I disagree. What we know so far seems to indicate an exceptional case of election interference by the Russian government, going far beyond anything we've seen in past American elections.

We know nothing of the sort. We have a bunch of disconnected dots and then some unsubstantiated claims by various people/organisations that are part of or linked to the state.
That seems a very far distance from your previous position that such interference was commonplace in the past. If you're going to claim Russian interference and computer hacking to influence American elections is so commonplace as to be "generic" I think you owe us more of an explanation than tut-tutting about the need to conduct a thorough investigation. Why does there seem to be so much evidence of such activities in this election cycle than in the past, if you claim it has been so prevalent for most of recent history?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

That seems a very far distance from your previous position that such interference was commonplace in the past.

Not really. 'exceptional' was your word, not mine. That may be, but it's to be proven, not asserted.

quote:

If you're going to claim Russian interference and computer hacking to influence American elections is so commonplace as to be "generic"

There are a million ways to attempt to be 'involved in the politics of another country' and not all of them are 'computer hacking'. Just look at the playbook of the CIA over the past few decades. Manipulation by an all powerful enemy who subtle enough to engineer slim victory but whose actual means are yet to be discovered is a pretty extraordinary claim which demands extraordinary evidence.

quote:

I think you owe us more of an explanation than tut-tutting about the need to conduct a thorough investigation.

Explanation for what, precisely?

Ultimately, I don't think hyperventilating about a bunch of disconnected dots is particularly effective. If you want to indulge in it go ahead by all means. At this point, there is no guarentee that a Republican won't win the next presidential election.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
One has got to wonder if Russia is the most successful manipulator of elections in the world, and which country might be better at it than them.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think you owe us more of an explanation than tut-tutting about the need to conduct a thorough investigation.

Explanation for what, precisely?
Your assertion that the Russian government has been "interfering in all US elections" for some unspecified time (though context would imply you mean several past elections at the least) and that their efforts in the 2016 election fall within the "generic" parameters of past efforts. That's quite a lot to claim, given the information currently onhand regarding their 2016 efforts.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
One has got to wonder if Russia is the most successful manipulator of elections in the world, and which country might be better at it than them.

If we're grading on a curve I think it is safe to say that the U.S. is not in danger of failing. The WaPo article doesn't mention recent meddling in the Ukraine under the previous administration.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

Your assertion that the Russian government has been "interfering in all US elections" for some unspecified time (though context would imply you mean several past elections at the least)

Historically during the Soviet-era they attempted to influence the direction of politics in a number of Western European countries. While this was overblown by the security services for their own ends - it existed as a phenomanae. Since then they've definitely tried to influence politics in the former Eastern Europe and SSR states. They are also familiar with how the West sought to influence politics throughout the world, including in Russia during the Yelstin-era. I think it's highly probable that if they interferred with this election, that they also interferred with others (all it requires is a set of techniques and a willingness to use them).

quote:

and that their efforts in the 2016 election fall within the "generic" parameters of past efforts. That's quite a lot to claim, given the information currently onhand regarding their 2016 efforts.

What concrete information do we actually have regarding their efforts? We have meetings, emails with vague references to unspecified help, and allegations that the release of some information was highly coincidental. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at least some of this goes on some of the time. Phishing to find the guillible - if thats what it was - isn't a technique restricted to the intelligence services.

But again, all this matters not a jot unless real evidence is found, until then it just diverts energy, gives a partisan edge to the whole thing and makes those on the other side double down in defiance.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
They are also familiar with how the West sought to influence politics throughout the world, including in Russia during the Yelstin-era. I think it's highly probable that if they interferred with this election, that they also interferred with others (all it requires is a set of techniques and a willingness to use them).

.. and in fact there is an article on just this topic linked off the link in the previous post to mine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/07/sure-the-u-s-and-russia-often-meddle-in-foreign-elections-does- it-matter/
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Oh, let's be really clear. The best manipulation of another country in recent memory has to be the USA's manipulation of the Mujahadeen (forerunners of Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan which led directly to the collapse of the Soviet Union**. (Of course the Mujahadeen thought they did it, and this directly leads to the Islamic terror problems, but that's beside this point).

Additional manipulations include the invasion of Iraq and destabilization of it, the overthrow of the Libyan government. Then there's Tunisia, Egypt, and farther back in time, Iran, and into my youth, Chile, Vietnam. I've missed some.

None of these are elections are they? So the Russians do it with more finesse and not requiring of force of arms?

**How Jimmy Carter and I started the Mujahideen - interview of Zbignew Brzezinski, Carter's secretary of state or some such position.

[ 16. October 2017, 23:32: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
AFAICT the Russians interfere in everybody’s elections. They certainly had a go here (where their preferred candidate was Marine Le Pen). They do it because they want to destabilise NATO, among other reasons.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here's a particularly slick example of Russian interference (alas from the POST, but the headline says it all and you need not click through): the Russian web page urging Texas to declare independence and secede.
The article concludes, "The creators of Heart of Texas not only targeted the sociopolitical tensions within the United Staes. They also exploited our gullibility, which turned out to be far greater than I could have ever imagined. And by assisting them in this massive lie, Facebook has enabled one of the greatest frauds in recent American history."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Looks like the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to put Carter Page's stated intention to plead the Fifth to the test.

Maybe I'm just forgetful, but I don't recall any of Romney or McCain's top campaign advisors resorting to their rights against self-incrimination before Congressional committees. (At least not regarding campaign matters.) In fact, I'm drawing a blank on any of them even being subpœnaed by Congress. Must have happened though, since such things are apparently typical and normal in American politics.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I seriously thought Carter Page was a woman. Sorry, getting confused. That'd be Paige Carter.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Texas and Russia:

For those who don't know, the possibility of Texas seceding is an ongoing thing. Russia didn't invent that. They knew enough to use it, and that took paying attention.

Interesting they did that, considering how they react to separatist countries/groups there.

(Not criticizing Brenda nor her link. Just figured non-Americans might not know, and just think the Russians made a stupid joke.)
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Tbere are several states who, if they threatened secession, I'd be inclined to respond, "See ya...don't want to be ya."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I personally have no problems with Texas seceding. Naturally they would have to pay back the cost of the interstate highway system, paid for by us. If they won't permit the US Army to hang onto Fort Hood, or NASA to use the Houston Space Center, naturally they should pay for those too. And, the next time a hurricane comes by? Puerto Rico, baby.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It'd be interesting in the longer term if Mexico determined to give votes expat Mexicans and their descendants. They could theoretically have representatives in two national governments. I've heard ideas of doing this, but nothing practical.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Now many liberal sites are wondering if a slow-motion military coup is in the works. There is General Kelly as Cheif of Staff. There is General McMaster as National Security Advisor. And there is General Mattis as Defense Secretary.

Crocker has called them the only grown-ups in the room.

I find it funny that Mad Dog Mattis is considered saner than his boss. He got the name "Mad Dog" for his uncompromising approach to American Enemies. He once said, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

At least he knows how to plan things out.

Ultimately, if Congress does not have the guts to impeach, I do think the Cabinet, led by the generals will invoke the 25th Amendment, saying Trump is unable to fulfill his duties as president of the Unite States. Look for this to happen within the next year. At least that is my bet.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
np--

Do you mean ex-pat Mexicans who are now US citizens? That could get very complicated very quickly. Officially, the US gov't doesn't recognize dual citizenship. Plus new citizens swear to give up all allegiance to their former country. I realize there are dual citizens here. I don't know how it works, on a practical basis.

If you mean ex-pat Mexicans who aren't citizens, but are here legally, they wouldn't have official gov't representation, as far as I know--though some kind-hearted legislator might help. But, not being citizens, they wouldn't be able to vote. Some places allow them to vote on a local basis for things like school district officers.

If you mean undocumented immigrants from Mexico: they need compassion; they're trying to make better lives for themselves and their loved ones; their work is needed; they need a guest worker program...and they are here illegally. All of those have to be faced, or the situation will never be healthily resolved. But, as things stand, they're not officially entitled to gov't representation.

So I don't see that the suggested arrangement would do any good.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'll take your money Gramps49. He's not put a foot wrong, he's politically perfect; he is the lord of chaos, of misrule, impervious, immune. Nothing can stop him as he actually isn't going anywhere. He's TV.

There IS no narrative. But that. History is truly dead.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Ultimately, if Congress does not have the guts to impeach, I do think the Cabinet, led by the generals will invoke the 25th Amendment, saying Trump is unable to fulfill his duties as president of the Unite States. Look for this to happen within the next year. At least that is my bet.

I don’t think El Presidente’s going anywhere in the near future. In a sane world, he would be impeached already, but we aren’t living in a sane world.

The only way Trump is headed out of the White House is if the Democrats get their act together and start winning elections.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'll take your money Gramps49.

So will I, regretfully.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now many liberal sites are wondering if a slow-motion military coup is in the works. There is General Kelly as Cheif of Staff. There is General McMaster as National Security Advisor. And there is General Mattis as Defense Secretary.

Crocker has called them the only grown-ups in the room.

I find it funny that Mad Dog Mattis is considered saner than his boss. He got the name "Mad Dog" for his uncompromising approach to American Enemies. He once said, "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

At least he knows how to plan things out.

Ultimately, if Congress does not have the guts to impeach, I do think the Cabinet, led by the generals will invoke the 25th Amendment, saying Trump is unable to fulfill his duties as president of the Unite States. Look for this to happen within the next year. At least that is my bet.

Surely that would result in an election?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Surely that would result in an election?

No, that would lead to a President Pence.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But would it, if the Generals decided to carry on without Pence - or an election, for that matter?

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The great boon of a President Pence would be that he's sane. Thus we wouldn't have this saber rattling about North Korea, or the frantic lurching from position to position, sometimes within one paragraph, that we see now.
The great terror of a President Pence would be that he's sane. He would address his goals in a reasonable and tactical way, greatly increasing the chance that he'd actually achieve them. And most of them are putrid.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Not everyone would agree that Pence is sane, save in comparison to Trump.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
It's not the Westminster system (which also, with a little stick handling, avoids election). Someone fills in the role of President until the next scheduled election. The most recent example of this is Gerald Ford becoming President upon Nixon's resignation.

The presidential line of succession:
1) VP (Pence)
2) Speaker of the House of Representatives (Ryan)
3) President pro tempore of the Senate (Hatch?)
4) Sec. of State (Tillerson)
5) Sec of the Treasury (Mnuchin)
6) Sec. of Defense (Mattis)
7) AG (Sessions)
8) Sec. of the Interior (Zinke)

Beyond that, it's really quite moot (barring a Designated Survivor scenario).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Which is why I wondered if the Generals, finding themselves succeeding in removing The Barking Dog, might simply carry on by also removing The Small Coins Of Little Worth....

IJ
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Not everyone would agree that Pence is sane, save in comparison to Trump.

Maybe not sane, but Pence is not so clearly deluded as Trump.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
As I just posted that, I didn't pause to savour the thought of President Sessions..... mmmm.... delicious....
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Which is why I wondered if the Generals, finding themselves succeeding in removing The Barking Dog, might simply carry on by also removing The Small Coins Of Little Worth....

IJ

A general does not have to be president for the generals to be in power.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
True, but it would be much tidier without Little Pennies hanging around the place, no?

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Maybe I am naive (always a possibility), or maybe I have been listening to too many Roman history podcasts again, but I tend to think that our military no longer attracts the kind of person who craves power enough to seize it. It's not really a viable path to fortune or power here- if you are a young American Julius Caesar or Pompey the Great, you don't go to West Point, you go to New York and work in finance or San Francisco and work in tech. And our elections reflect this- for all of the talk of respecting the troops, it's been since 1988 that we elected someone with military experience president, and he was from the earlier generation where military service actually carried some cachet. We've had three presidents who avoided service in Vietnam, and the two Vietnam war heroes who did run got beat.

Compare that, say, with North Korea, where military service might just get you in a position to benefit from widespread corruption. That's attractive to a young, dangerously ambitious guy.

No, at this point, I tend to think that you go into the military because you want to get out of poverty, because you want to serve the country, or because it is the family business. You don't do it because you are a young person on the make who is looking for a path to power. So I don't see a military coup as a huge threat. My general impression (ha ha!) is that the generals will try their best to avoid nuclear war, but let Trump's presidency otherwise run its course, until the voters get a chance to make some changes.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

No, at this point, I tend to think that you go into the military because you want to get out of poverty, because you want to serve the country,

The enlisted, yes.
quote:

or because it is the family business.

The enlisted and the lower ranked officers

quote:

You don't do it because you are a young person on the make who is looking for a path to power.

The upper ranks of the military are about politics and power. One cannot achieve those ranks without knowledge and use of both.
quote:

So I don't see a military coup as a huge threat. My general impression (ha ha!) is that the generals will try their best to avoid nuclear war,

No current Curtis LeMays?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Hmm. My daughter is a major in the US Army Reserve; she has been an active duty officer and deployed to Afghanistan. She came in through ROTC, where she was one of the top cadets in the nation.

And before that? She was fueled by 9-11, which took place when she was 16 years old. She came to me on the 12th of September and said, "The world is screwed up." And I said (what else could you say?), "Yes, it is." She replied, "Adults have screwed it up." Undeniable, I agreed. And then she said, "I'll fix it."

And there was the moment I made my fatal error; I should have said something like Oh, boys won't like girls who do that, or But will you get to wear heels?, or perhaps Math is hard. Instead I said, "You do that, dear." And here we are.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
And our elections reflect this- for all of the talk of respecting the troops, it's been since 1988 that we elected someone with military experience president, and he was from the earlier generation where military service actually carried some cachet. We've had three presidents who avoided service in Vietnam, and the two Vietnam war heroes who did run got beat.

Depends on how you define "military experience". Most people would classify the National Guard as a military organization.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
And our elections reflect this- for all of the talk of respecting the troops, it's been since 1988 that we elected someone with military experience president, and he was from the earlier generation where military service actually carried some cachet. We've had three presidents who avoided service in Vietnam, and the two Vietnam war heroes who did run got beat.

Depends on how you define "military experience". Most people would classify the National Guard as a military organization.
There is National Guard service and then there is National Guard service.
Call GW a chickenshit all you want, he does not represent those others.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
And our elections reflect this- for all of the talk of respecting the troops, it's been since 1988 that we elected someone with military experience president, and he was from the earlier generation where military service actually carried some cachet. We've had three presidents who avoided service in Vietnam, and the two Vietnam war heroes who did run got beat.

Depends on how you define "military experience". Most people would classify the National Guard as a military organization.
I believe this might be the first time anyone on the Ship has ever described W's time in the air national guard as anything other than a draft dodge.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Depends on how you define "military experience". Most people would classify the National Guard as a military organization.

I believe this might be the first time anyone on the Ship has ever described W's time in the air national guard as anything other than a draft dodge.
Enlisting in a relatively safe military organization to avoid being drafted into a more dangerous one is a well-known draft dodge. That doesn't mean the National Guard is not a military organization. I suspect you're trying to conflate "military experience" with "combat experience".

[ 18. October 2017, 17:56: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I suspect you're trying to conflate "military experience" with "combat experience".

I'd describe it more as bad writing than any attempt to conflate anything as something else. (See my disclaimer at the beginning of my first paragraph.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Not everyone would agree that Pence is sane, save in comparison to Trump.

Maybe not sane, but Pence is not so clearly deluded as Trump.
Maybe this Pence is just quieter? Tweets less? I have been informed about some of his ideas and policies when a governor. He sounds toxic, without scruples. The quality of vice presidents is questionable at least since Nixon was one, and accelerated with Dan Quayle and the candidacy of Sarah Palin. Trumpy then is a symptom, not the disease in that understanding.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Don't forget VP #3, Aaron Burr.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
In the meantime the Orange One shows how heartless he is when he tells the widow of Sgt. La David T. Johnson who was killed in an ambush in Niger--"He knew what he signed up for."

That is twelve days after his death and only after reporters pressed the OO why he had not yet commented on the deaths of the Green Berets in Niger.

Of course, OO is claiming that Obama never called the Kellys after their son's death. Yet the Obamas did host the Kellys along with other Gold Star families at a dinner about six months after the Kellys had lost their son.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Proof text.

Well did he or didn't he?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
When Robert Kelly died, there had been 466 American Combat deaths that year. Obama was traveling through Asia at the time. Record do show the Kellys were at the special Memorial Day dinner in 2011 They were seated at Michelle Obama's table.

Obama was known to go out to Dover Air Force base from time to time to receive the bodies of fallen servicemen and women. He visited wounded service people at Walter Reed. He was known to go out to Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetary to walk among the gravestones. Section 60 is the section were those who died while in Afghanistan or Iraq were being buried.

To date, I do not think Trump as gone out to Dover to receive any returning bodies. He has not visited WR as far as I know. I don't even think he knows where Section 60 is either.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
This paragraph from an AP article sums up the inanity of this controversy:

quote:
Like presidents before him, Trump has made personal contact with some families of the fallen but not all. What’s different is that Trump, alone among them, has picked a political fight over who’s done better to honor the war dead and their families.
Everything's a contest with Trump, and everything is always about him. He wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

One interesting thing which stood out for me was this bit, farther down.

quote:
A White House official said later that Obama did not call Kelly but not respond to questions whether some other sort of outreach was made.
Why is the AP (and numerous other news agencies where I've seen similar wording) allowing "a White House official" to speak anonymously on background to plug the administration's line and trash-talk a previous president of the other party? I can understand the need for anonymity for certain sources: whistleblowers who fear retaliation from their employers or co-workers, crime victims in certain circumstances, leakers, etc. I see no reason why "a White House official" should be granted similar anonymity to parrot something the president* has stated earlier. It may not seem that relevant, but it reminds me very uncomfortably of the way anonymous journalistic sources within the Bush II administration disseminated various untruths in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Everything's a contest with Trump, and everything is always about him. He wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

That describes him so perfectly.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
When it comes to a current White House official reporting Obama did not call the Kellys I am waiting to see if that can be verified or disproven by the Obama people. Nevertheless, the Kellys were invited to a Memorial Day dinner by the Obamas, and they did attend. Has the OO invited any recent Gold Star families to dine with him? Not that I know of. He probably considers them Losers.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Everything's a contest with Trump, and everything is always about him. He wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

That describes him so perfectly.
Do we get to vote? Can we skip the bride part?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
You beat me to it, Ohher.
[Biased]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
There truly are no depths to which this creature will not sink. I cannot believe it. He continues to astound...or rather depress.

Is there a psych in the White House? One has never been needed more to get him over this massive inferiority complex he tries to hide (/amateur psychologist).
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
You don't psych there. PsychoTweeter needs an accidentally on purpose overdose on whatever drugs he's shoving up his pompous ass every day.

Failing that, lock him up. Or maybe the 2nd Amendment people, I don't know.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
There truly are no depths to which this creature will not sink. I cannot believe it. He continues to astound...or rather depress.

Is there a psych in the White House? One has never been needed more to get him over this massive inferiority complex he tries to hide (/amateur psychologist).

Trump does not have an inferiority complex. He is genuinely and demonstrably inferior.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Everything's a contest with Trump, and everything is always about him. He wants to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

That describes him so perfectly.
Thanks. Can't take full credit though. It's a quote from Alice Roosevelt Longworth about her father, Theodore.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
My conversations with a guy who became a General in the US Army at the end of a long military career was that some senior military officers (who he called 'politicals') do indeed have ambitions outside of the service. He reckons that they are the ones to avoid. Others (like him) join as youths to get away from poverty and/or a bad home situation and the military becomes their life. The military houses and feeds them, sends them to college, gives them meaningful work, why wouldn't they be fully committed to it?

It's probably rare for those people to reach the upper levels of the service, but some do. My impression is that the army is quite possibly an institution with more upward mobility than most. But as with every facet of life, people all have different starting points.

I'm sure the motives of military people are as varied as those in the Church. As soon as you start to generalise you find yourself in error.

One of the real surprises for me is that military people voted for Trump after he showed himself to have no understanding of them or respect for their service. I guess John McCain's reputation was already tarnished in their eyes, and once Trump got the nomination, Republican tribalism kicked in. I still shake my head about it. I just about went through the roof when I heard what Trump had said about McCain's service. This latest stuff (massively outrageous too) is more of the same. Military people should be outraged by it, and they should have seen it coming.

I'm pretty sure that the only source of funding for the US Army is the Government. This is good. I understand that in some countries, Egypt and Indonesia are two I've heard about, the army runs businesses and funds itself. Very scary. That I think is the hairy situation in Myanmar at the moment.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:



I'm pretty sure that the only source of funding for the US Army is the Government. This is good. I understand that in some countries, Egypt and Indonesia are two I've heard about, the army runs businesses and funds itself. Very scary. That I think is the hairy situation in Myanmar at the moment.

You are correct. The US devotes a far larger proportion of its budget to military than nearly any nation on earth. But it's more or less a sacred cow; even Li'l Donny has tried to increase the amount of money given to the military. Congress usually colludes in this; a great many boondoggle weapons and dingbat research projects can be funded in the home district that way.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You are correct. The US devotes a far larger proportion of its budget to military than nearly any nation on earth. But it's more or less a sacred cow; even Li'l Donny has tried to increase the amount of money given to the military. Congress usually colludes in this; a great many boondoggle weapons and dingbat research projects can be funded in the home district that way.

In purely economic terms the U.S. federal government is essentially an insurance company with an army. That is where most federal spending goes. To programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (an insurance company) or to the military (with an army). Which illustrates the insincerity of most politicians who cast themselves as "budget hawks" who seek to reduce the federal deficit through spending cuts. Unless you're proposing cuts to some combination of Social Security, Medicare, or the military, you're just fiddling around the edges of federal expenditures.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Per capita, the USA military spending is 10th in the world. In terms of total spent, it spends 4x more than the next largest spender China and 6-10 times more than countries which rank 3 to 15. Link. (you can sort by largest and by per capita etc).
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It still spends 36% of the world's total and spends more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, Japan & Germany combined.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Per capita, the USA military spending is 10th in the world. In terms of total spent, it spends 4x more than the next largest spender China and 6-10 times more than countries which rank 3 to 15. Link. (you can sort by largest and by per capita etc).

The link provided gives percent of GDP spending, not per capita. Big difference.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Cross-referencing the data from npfiss' link with Wiki's population table shows that the U.S. is actually 4th in the world in terms of per capita military spending. The three above it (United Arab Emirates, Israel, and Oman) owe their position to low populations rather than high spending.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
There is no current poll on military member support for Trump. The last one I know of was in June after his first hundred days.

Depending on who you follow Trump garnered around 60% - 75% of the military vote.

At the beginning of his presidency, Trump had a 51% approval rating and a 41% disapproval rating

In June that flipped completely with 41% approving and 53% disapproving.

I believe if a new poll were held today you would see the disapproval rating matching the general population polls.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Good grief. You know how bad it’s got when George W. Bush (!) starts sounding like the voice of reason.

Also – while Dubya has never been the most articulate or charismatic of speakers, and still isn’t (he stumbled over the pronunciation of some long words) – he actually used long words, in correctly assembled sentences respecting the habitual grammatical structures of the English language. Felt quite novel.

I still think Dubya left the world a worse place after his term in office but, for the first time, I actually feel some kind of respect for him. I suppose he has nothing to lose at this stage. Well done, George.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
BTW, Murricans, would you please ask your President Tweeto to stop poking his orange nose into our Ukland affairs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41695667

A Tory MP's description of Tweeto as a 'daft twerp' hits the mark...

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Good grief. You know how bad it’s got when George W. Bush (!) starts sounding like the voice of reason.

Also – while Dubya has never been the most articulate or charismatic of speakers, and still isn’t (he stumbled over the pronunciation of some long words) – he actually used long words, in correctly assembled sentences respecting the habitual grammatical structures of the English language. Felt quite novel.

I still think Dubya left the world a worse place after his term in office but, for the first time, I actually feel some kind of respect for him. I suppose he has nothing to lose at this stage. Well done, George.

Me too. I never thought I would type the words, Goerge W. is so great!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I thought his (alleged - but I hope it's true) comment regarding The Unspeakable Orange's inauguration speech was priceless:
quote:
“That was some weird shit.”
[Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Just the other day Forbes Magazine claimed that in the past year Trump lost $600,000,000, dropping him from being the 156th richest person in the US to the 248th richest person in the US.

The next day, Forbes Magazine got a very strange voicemail. It follows:

"This message is for anyone in concern. I'm a supporter of Donald Trump. I love him and his very intelligent family. And this is like Forbes Magazine are in conspiracy to break this man financially, it seems. Donald Trump has more money than he ever had. So Forbes making noise about some three point something billion is fake news and therefore Forbes is on the drain-the-swamp list. Steve Bannon will make sure magazines and businesses like you will go down because Donald Trump is very intelligent, very handsome. His children are very beautiful, very handsome. They have the highest IQs than any racist or anybody in this county. And we love him, and he will continue to run this country, and his children will too. So fuck Forbes Magazine, and you can stick that fake news up your ass."

The call was anonymous but it has all the earmarks of Donald Trump's manner of speaking. The thought is it came from the OO himself.

Too bad he lost only $600,000,000.

In the meantime, the lawsuit in the New York Federal District court over Trump receiving emoluments is still going forward.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A free click, this explains why Li'l Donny is weakness at empathy is so perilous.
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
Terrifying!
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I see Winston Churchhill's grandson has a new nickname for OO, "dafttweb." OO probably thinks it is a compliment.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Terrifying? Why? As terrifying as Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon? Carter? Reagan? Clinton?

[ 21. October 2017, 16:16: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Terrifying? Why? As terrifying as Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon? Carter? Reagan? Clinton?

Really? All people with faults, but they were adults.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Doesn't say much for adults.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Doesn't say much for adults.

The point is, that you seem to be trying to make a comparison between them and the Cheeto. There isn't one.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Nixon is pretty close. trumpy is like Nixon on the techno-crack of twitter. Let's bomb Cambodia.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
They all found the limits of power. Most were spectacularly militarily incompetent or WORSE. Trump is uniquely gracelessly unpresidential, a horribly brilliant populist and as powerless as they. Clinton was an adult with his Cohiba? Was grown up in his turning his back on his failed UN cover venture in Somalia green lighting the Rwandan genocide? Johnson was adult in the Gulf of Tonkin? Carter scared the shit out of the Russians and failed in the daring of a cautious man in Iran (unlike Ford in Cambodia) and on and on. Reagan won the Cold War in his own back yard with murdering fascist scum like Blowtorch Bob. Bush Jnr. was grown up in invading Iraq? Trump just tweets shit.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Trump just tweets shit.

I wish that was all he did. I don't have to read his tweets, I'd be irritated but otherwise content if all he did was indulge his taste for ill-considered impulsive 3 am tweetstorms.

But he doesn't just tweet. He issues executive orders-- horrible ones that keep people running for their lives from entering the US. Terrible ones that undermine our fragile, hard-won, second rate health care system we have, leaving people endangered. He undoes deals that have been made with young adults who have committed no crime-- deals that were made in good faith and that they built their future on. All decisions that are, quite literally, life and death.

And this is just the ones we know about. Then there's the very real possibility of collusion with the Russian government, orchestrating a bloodless coup that we are now living in. There's the very real questions about what at the very least looks like a highly questionable military action where real people died.

As far as I know, tweets never killed anyone. I wish I could say the same for Trump.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
How do we quantify the actual impact of his small minded EOs? Can he quantify a cost benefit? What actually changes? He talks nasty, narrow, populist isolationist shit, which creates anxiety in 'illegals', what lives are lost? So far and I'll bet for the next NINE years he'll do nothing as bad as Obama the King of Drone Collateral let alone Clinton or Bush Jnr.

Can we quantify the impact on women's rights? I.e. abortion? Where are the quantifiable impacts beyond tone?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
which creates anxiety in 'illegals', what lives are lost?

What quality of life can you have being in such a state? Always expecting the knock or always expecting to be arrested. I could see how anxiety could be very troubling. It's not death from drones above, or known deportation, but many innocents are caught up in this extreme anxiety, which troubles me.

I get anxious going outside; I know I could not cope with this.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Martin--

Why do you keep defending T?

Many of your posts can be read that way, as saying "oh, he couldn't possibly be THAT bad". American Shipmates and others have laid it out, time and time again, for the past year. We've provided citations for all sorts of things.

T is a complete mess, and in no way functional enough to be president. Seriously.

Is this your way of coping with the danger? Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
GK, you raise a Good Point.

If Martin60 lived in America, he might not be so sanguine about The Deranged Dotard. We in Ukland see through a glass, darkly, but you poor Usanians have to live and cope with the Orange Monster as best you can.

Other presidents - even the gracious, witty, intelligent, articulate, populist Obama - had their faults and failings, as do we all, but at least they tried to do a good job.

The Barking Dog just barks uselessly, and continually, via Twitter. He is a disgrace to the country, and to the office of President.

(Please dispose of him somehow before he comes and pollutes our soil by setting foot on it, BTW).

IJ
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Why do you keep defending T?

I think it's a Sanders-supporter / Green-supporter / anarcho-socialist type thing. "All Presidents are part of the evil racist capitalist military-industrial complex; Trump merely a little more overtly so"; or so the thinking goes.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, it sounds rather like various ultra-left views, for example, that Labour are the same as Tories, so a vote for Labour is pointless. Well, there is some truth in that, but also some falsity. I suppose the equivalent is that it's pointless to vote Democrat, as they are tied to big business and so on.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I was helping with the prayers today at church (you can come up during the Eucharist and ask the little prayer team for specific prayer). And a friend of mine, a widow who runs a small business, came up to pray about her financial situation. Customers didn't pay and she's going to have surgery, losing her home, etc. And she said, "The Trump people owe me $135,000, and I can't get them to pay."

We have of course read of similar vendors, in all the newspapers. Oppressing widows, what's new? But wow -- I actually know one of them. How very many must there be!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
And Our Blessed Lord was not too keen on those who oppressed orphans, widows, etc.....

[Disappointed]

Barking Dog, watch out for those Pearly Gates. There may be a sign directing you down to the boiler room...

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Please stop calling him a dog, dogs are good animals I love to spend my time with and have near me. I wouldn’t want to be in the same town as the T**** .
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Please stop calling him a dog, dogs are good animals I love to spend my time with and have near me. I wouldn’t want to be in the same town as the T**** .

I agree. I believe T**** is one of the first U.S. Presidents to not have ever had a pet. Having a dog might have made him a better person, but I assume he was one of those kids who pulled the wings off of flies, so it's probably better he never had a pet to abuse.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sorry, Boogie - I was simply quoting Mr. Kim.

Point taken, though - as you say, dogs are Good, and probably far more sagacious than The Orange Dotard.

IJ
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Please stop calling him a dog, dogs are good animals I love to spend my time with and have near me. I wouldn’t want to be in the same town as the T**** .

I agree. I believe T**** is one of the first U.S. Presidents to not have ever had a pet. Having a dog might have made him a better person, but I assume he was one of those kids who pulled the wings off of flies, so it's probably better he never had a pet to abuse.
He'd be the sort to let the animal shit everywhere and not clean up. Probably let it savage other people's dogs.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Good grief. You know how bad it’s got when George W. Bush (!) starts sounding like the voice of reason.

One of Trump's accomplishments is that, with every day that passes, he makes W look more presidential.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The Iraq invading, millions dead, torture president looks good in comparison... I don't remember beaming into the alternate universe. Burn baby burn
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How do we quantify the actual impact of his small minded EOs? Can he quantify a cost benefit? What actually changes? He talks nasty, narrow, populist isolationist shit, which creates anxiety in 'illegals', what lives are lost? So far and I'll bet for the next NINE years he'll do nothing as bad as Obama the King of Drone Collateral let alone Clinton or Bush Jnr.

Can we quantify the impact on women's rights? I.e. abortion? Where are the quantifiable impacts beyond tone?

On quite a few of these EOs, yes, we can quantify them.

We can, for example, quantify the number of DACA kids-- young adults who made a deal with the US, kept their end of the bargain, made future decisions like enrolling in college and revealing personal info to Homeland Security based on the assurances of that deal-- who have had their contracts torn up. We can document those DACA students who have already been deported.

We can count the number of families who have been separated due to immigration crack downs-- again, people with signed agreements with ICE-- where fathers or mothers have been separated from their children. Documentable.

In the months to come, we will be able to document the numbers of US citizens who lose their health insurance due to the most recent EOs regarding Obamacare (after the GOP tried & failed yet again to repeal Obamacare) which gut the financial viability of that program. Eventually, we will be able to document how many people died of preventable diseases because they were not screened or treated as they would have been under Obamacare.

In the months to come, we will be able to document how the abortion rate increases among those who have been denied access to contraception under a recent EO.

And these are just the things that are easy to count. There are many, many other examples that are clear but simply not as easy to count-- e.g. increase in violence against all sorts of ethnic minorities, Muslims, Jews, LGBTQ+.

And these are just the current EOs now in effect. There are things that have been threatened and may in fact come to pass in the near future-- such as the recent Dept. of Ed. threats to disability education-- that will have similarly dire effects if enacted.

So Martin, exactly how much human suffering are you willing to chalk up to empty talk before you finally accept that this is more than just tweet storms? Given that at least two of the countable examples mentioned above effect my own critically ill granddaughter, I passed that threshold months ago.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
What harm has the daftwit's Executive Orders done.

Well, with a stroke of the pen, he has gutted the Affordable Care Act.

With a stroke of the pen, he has put a hold on refugee resettlement in the United States. He has even created refugees fleeing into Canada from the US

With a stroke of the pen, he is trying to undo everything the Obama administration had accomplished.

With a stroke of the pen, he is reducing several national monuments (though this will be challenged in court).

By a stroke of the pen, he has withdrawn from the Paris Accords.

By a stroke of the pen, he has gutted the clean air act and will allow more coal to be burned, though many economists are now saying that won't happen.

By a stroke of the pen, he has effectively canceled American participation in the Iranian Agreements.

By a stroke of the pen

Obama was roundly criticized by the Republicans for using executive orders to get his agenda across; yet, in Trump's first 200 days, he has signed more executive orders than Obama did in Obama's first year.

How much damage has daftwit's Executive Orders done? Let's just say it might take twenty years to undo all the repercussions.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I don't think Martin is supporting Trump in his recent posts, but using Trump to attack US foreign policy since the Second World War. It's a bullshit attack, but I think that's what he's doing.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

Maybe. But, to me, it reads like "Pres. So-and-so did this and that; how is T any worse?"

Other people have used that tactic, too, though they've ebbed. Martin, however, has repeatedly posted such things lately. Surprising, and it doesn't seem like him, IMHO.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Please stop calling him a dog, dogs are good animals I love to spend my time with and have near me. I wouldn’t want to be in the same town as the T**** .

I agree. I believe T**** is one of the first U.S. Presidents to not have ever had a pet. Having a dog might have made him a better person, but I assume he was one of those kids who pulled the wings off of flies, so it's probably better he never had a pet to abuse.
Just for the record:

--Lots of people never have pets, for all sorts of reasons (not allowed, allergies, no place to walk them, etc.) and turn out fine.

--Lots of people have pets, and turn out badly for all sorts of reasons.

--Not having a pet, not wanting a pet IS NOT THE SAME as hating animals or abusing them.

--Some people like animals a lot, but just don't want to live with them or be responsible for them. There's nothing wrong with that.

T needed a healthier family, and probably a whole lot of other help. From what I've heard of his family of origin, it's probably a good thing that there wasn't a pet in the mix. Too much tension and competition.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the POST but is delicious: John McCain mentions bone spurs as a specific excuse that rich white boys used to get out of going to Vietnam.

I had a feeling at the time that McCain wasn't going to forget being accused of being a loser. There is no one like Li'l Donny for making unnecessary enemies. If one wrote a character this idiotic in a book, the editor would say, "Dear, this is all a little bit unbelievable. Can you dial it back?"
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Golden Key, I didn't mean to imply all that you seem to think I did. I have dear friends (including a Shipmate) who have never had or wanted pets.

But I also know that many people benefit from the companionship of pets (especially dogs), and maybe Trump would have become a better person if he'd had a dog to love and to love him more than his parents did. (But, more likely, the dog would have suffered a miserable existence.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is from the POST but is delicious: John McCain mentions bone spurs as a specific excuse that rich white boys used to get out of going to Vietnam.

I had a feeling at the time that McCain wasn't going to forget being accused of being a loser. There is no one like Li'l Donny for making unnecessary enemies. If one wrote a character this idiotic in a book, the editor would say, "Dear, this is all a little bit unbelievable. Can you dial it back?"

Here is a free version.

Delicious indeed ... let’s see what kind of tweet it provokes. No way the T*** will leave it alone.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
BF--

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
GK, you raise a Good Point.

If Martin60 lived in America, he might not be so sanguine about The Deranged Dotard. We in Ukland see through a glass, darkly, but you poor Usanians have to live and cope with the Orange Monster as best you can.

Other presidents - even the gracious, witty, intelligent, articulate, populist Obama - had their faults and failings, as do we all, but at least they tried to do a good job.

The Barking Dog just barks uselessly, and continually, via Twitter. He is a disgrace to the country, and to the office of President.

(Please dispose of him somehow before he comes and pollutes our soil by setting foot on it, BTW).

BF--

Thanks for this, especially the second paragraph. [Smile]

I think it's possible T thinks he's doing a good job--or trying to, but everyone's getting in his way.

Within legal and non-violent parameters, most Americans (IMHO) would like to get him out of office. But he's Republican; both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans; many members of Congress are in the pockets of lobbyists and corporate interests; and there are certain criteria for the established ways of evicting him, which include who has to support it.

The shadow of Watergate probably doesn't help, either. At the time, it was wrenching; and, as I recall, the hearings were on TV everyday. Plus Americans prefer a stable, solid gov't. That's one reason a parliament would never work here. Either we'd resist having the gov't taken apart and rearranged like LEGOs; or we'd wind up doing it every other week.

(Parliaments may work very well for the countries that have them, and that's great; but I've never liked the idea. And, when I was growing up, it seemed from the news that the French and...Italian (?) gov'ts were always collapsing and re-forming.)


QUESTION for those of other countries who think we should get T out of office soon:

What if it were your country? What LEGAL and NON-VIOLENT methods would be available?

Historically, how was it handled in your countries? Granted, there are classic, quick ways for removing a sovereign from office. But have there been cases when it was done legally and non-violently?

How was King George III handled when his porphyria-madness was active?

Thx.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What if it were your country? What LEGAL and NON-VIOLENT methods would be available?

orfeo and Gee D can probably best answer the legal means for this for Australia.

Sorry for this: but I think the only method is to wait it out and turf him out at the next election. Like it, or not, he did win the election through the means in place: the popular vote is a poor thing to turn to -- it is not the means of election here in Oz either. Unless something illegal is done we're kind of stuffed. I'd like our pretentious prat of a PM to get stuffed, but I just need to wait til the next election (hopefully).

I would hope the Opposition would take a good hard look at themselves, realise they are beholden to big business as much as the Liberal/Nationals [the party Trump would be in: btw Liberals are conservatives!], realise many people are suffering, across all classes and groups, and formulate suitable policies to address this. I don't think we'd get a Corbyn or Sanders, and maybe we don't want one, but I'd hope for a change. The 2 big parties can't yet see the change in the electorate; or perhaps don't want to. Or perhaps I'm just too socialist.

[ 24. October 2017, 02:47: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Pigwidgeon--

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Golden Key, I didn't mean to imply all that you seem to think I did. I have dear friends (including a Shipmate) who have never had or wanted pets.

But I also know that many people benefit from the companionship of pets (especially dogs), and maybe Trump would have become a better person if he'd had a dog to love and to love him more than his parents did. (But, more likely, the dog would have suffered a miserable existence.)

Thank you. [Smile] I'm not a pet person, and I've run into the things I mentioned. Animals are wonderful. When I was growing up, I occasionally pet-sat dogs and cats at their own homes. And that was fine. I had fish, long, long ago. I wasn't allowed anything else.

But I don't want the 24-7ness of responsibility for a pet, nor of its constant presence. I am, however, quite willing to say hello to pets and other animals I meet. Kind of like running into a neighbor. I might say hi, or chat; but I'm not going to take them home, and give them their own bed and bowl. [Biased] I think I lean towards not believing in pets, as a rule; but it's too late for dogs and cats to go back to the wild.

Probably TMI.

Anyway, I know that having a pet can be a really good influence/experience for some kids. But I've heard the presidents and dogs theory before; and I think it's problematic, for the reasons I mentioned.

Thanks for hearing me out.
[Angel]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kind of like running into a neighbor. I might say hi, or chat; but I'm not going to take them home, and give them their own bed and bowl. [Biased]

Brain bleach! Brain bleach!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mt--

I don't know what *you* had in mind. [Biased] I meant it literally: I'm not about to take a human neighbor home, and give them a pet bed and a pet bowl. Saying "hi, how are you?" in passing is enough.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I think in the case of George III Parliament acted to appoint his son Regent.

It's pretty easy to get rid of the Prime Minister in Australia, because it is not a directly elected office. In practice, the political party the Prime Minister leads meets and decides to elect someone else leader. I think the last three Prime Ministers lost their office that way. The deposed PM stays in Parliament, which can lead to some pretty severe food fights in the Parliamentary Dining Room.

I think what happens procedurally is that the new leader of the political party in Government announces to the House of Representatives that they are now the leader. There being no objection, they toodle along to see the Governor General, the representative of the Queen, and ask them for permission to form a Government. Permission is given, everyone is sworn in, and then they all go and get pissed at the PM's official residence, The Lodge.

On one such occasion, a Minister of the Crown was gyrating on a glass coffee table when the table broke and the Minister injured himself to such an extent that he required a wheelchair to attend Parliament the next day. His colleagues went around saying to the press that they had no idea that anyone had gyrated on top of a coffee table, let alone the bloke in the wheelchair. When pressed, they said they assumed that he had a skiing accident. When the journos mentioned it was high summer, they just stared blankly for a few seconds before running away.

Now that's Government for you!
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How was King George III handled when his porphyria-madness was active?

The Prince of Wales acted as regent for the remainder of George's life.

Do you really want T's son or son-in-law to step in? I guess it could not be worse, could it? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
As is only right in Purg, I'm tilting at the windmills of hyperbole over Trump.

His EOs are biting the poor, freedom from, in the name of freedom to, greed. Worse than any modern Republican president?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Martin--

Actually, we're not using hyperbole about Trump.

_He_ _is_ _crazy_.

Possibly has dementia; definitely was broken by his father, who taught all the kids that "only winners deserve to be loved"; erratic; wants ten times the number of nukes we have; keeps poking the dysfunctional president of N. Korea towards a war; his doc confirmed he still uses Minoxidil/Rogaine, a medicine for hair loss that has known brain effects; he can't cope with being less than the center of all things, and better than everyone else; he even insists on always having two scoops of ice cream at official dinners, rather than the limit of one that everyone else gets (minor, but demonstrative); he sexually assaults and harasses; he has some sort of developmental disability, and Obama said T has "severe learning disabilities"; etc.

Martin, if I may ask, have you watched any of T's news conferences? He gets caught off guard by reporters, and says truly bizarre stuff. He claims to do things he hasn't, like contacting more parents of dead US military members than the last several presidents. He offends a family of a dead soldier, then claims he was very supportive. Etc., etc.

And why, after all this time, are you assuming that the anti-Trump folks are just posting hyperbole???
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How was King George III handled when his porphyria-madness was active?

The Prince of Wales acted as regent for the remainder of George's life.

Do you really want T's son or son-in-law to step in? I guess it could not be worse, could it? [Ultra confused]

Um, I simply asked how it was handled. When I think of a British ruler who was mentally impaired, George III comes to mind. "The Madness Of King George", and all that.

I don't think anyone in that family, whether biologically or by marriage, is fit to be president. Some might do a better job.

[ 24. October 2017, 08:34: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
he even insists on always having two scoops of ice cream at official dinners, rather than the limit of one that everyone else gets (minor, but demonstrative);

Oh my.

You really couldn't make this up. You have made my day GK!


Honestly, I just saw Martin as calling for not attributing everything to Trump. Kind of like when I said I was cautious about war mistakes to him. But I am not American and living through the hell you are. And may be wrong.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I bet Manu Macron didn’t serve Trump two scoops of ice cream up the Eiffel Tower. In fact, I’m not sure there was ice cream at all. I’m fairly sure it was some very sophisticated haute cuisine that El Presidente didn’t enjoy very much. I highly doubt there was ketchup. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I thought his (alleged - but I hope it's true) comment regarding The Unspeakable Orange's inauguration speech was priceless:
quote:
“That was some weird shit.”
[Overused]

AIUI, Hillary quoted that on a Fox (?) show very recently, and Fox folks freaked out that she used a bad word on the air. I don't know if they tried to bleep it out. (Live TV and radio shows here have a delay of a few seconds between when something is said and when it's actually broadcast. Allows for bleeping out slips of the tongue.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Re inauguration speech.

Have you heard of "erasure poetry"?

This is pretty fine: Inauguration Poem for Redacted
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
This whole argument between Trump and the recent widow of a soldier killed on the battlefield is just extraordinary. It's like Trump is making a fist and punching himself in the face repeatedly. It would be so easy for the President to get out of this just by expressing his shock and grief that she feels as she does and saying something nice in public about her and her husband and how the nation owes them a huge debt. I am stunned that this has not been done. He'd get brownie points from almost every quarter.

In a related matter, I saw John McCain on TV. He does not look at all well. Its a measure of the man that he is out doing over Trump and stuffing around Mitch McConnell in Congress when he should clearly be bouncing his great-grandchildren on his knee and admiring desert sunsets.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The debate among POST pundits today is whether Crooked Donald is more like a toddler or a teenager. I would say that he partakes of the worst qualities of both. A toddler would never grope pussy or make sexualized comments; on the other hand a teenager would never insist on two scoops of ice cream.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Where's the transcript? And even if there is one, everyone will hear it differently. Trump is helplessly graceless. Me too.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The debate among POST pundits today is whether Crooked Donald is more like a toddler or a teenager. I would say that he partakes of the worst qualities of both. A toddler would never grope pussy or make sexualized comments; on the other hand a teenager would never insist on two scoops of ice cream.

While the ice cream thing can be a distraction from the many, many very very serious issues with this presidency, it's revealing that it's not just that he wants two scoops of ice cream (who doesn't?) it's that he wants to be the only one with two scoops. If everyone else had two he'd want-- nay, need-- three.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

In a related matter, I saw John McCain on TV. He does not look at all well. Its a measure of the man that he is out doing over Trump and stuffing around Mitch McConnell in Congress when he should clearly be bouncing his great-grandchildren on his knee and admiring desert sunsets.

Again, there is the freedom that comes from the certainty of death. Knowing that his fate is sealed and there's naught he can do about it has, I think, given him a rare freedom that makes him truly dangerous to the Powers That Be. He is uniquely able to speak truth to power-- unafraid of consequences, unafraid of voters or any sort of retribution, unswayed by promises of pork barrel or $$ and undaunted by threats from NRA or McConnell or Koch bros. He is uniquely free.

He is such an interesting man-- has had more than his share of low points, but he has also over the years shown himself capable of greatness. I think this will be the moment when his legacy will be built. Yes, there may be a bit less bouncing of the grandbabies on his knee. But I hope there will be wonderful stories told to those grandbabies, of that grandfather who loved them and fought for their future to the very end.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I've thought of a solution. In the movie "Dave" Kevin Kline plays a Presidential look-a-like who fills in when the actual President is in a coma -- and of course does a much better job of it.

If we could hogtie Trump and send him to a Twitter-free island far across some "big water, ocean water" then someone like Alec Baldwin could take over.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Latest news from BBC has Trumpolini the Ridiculous behaving, once more, like a little yobbo in a school playground:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41729586

'Debasing America', says Mr. Corker. How true - and this from a member of the ruling tribe!

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I like Trumpolini!

I am always slightly suspicious of someone leaving who suddenly finds courage. But I guess we all are like that. And it is a great story.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
How was King George III handled when his porphyria-madness was active?

The Prince of Wales acted as regent for the remainder of George's life.

Do you really want T's son or son-in-law to step in? I guess it could not be worse, could it? [Ultra confused]

Um, I simply asked how it was handled.
Sorry; did not mean that "you" directed solely at you - I meant it generically; that was not clear. I should have used "we" in the sense of a hypothetical. I could've guessed your thoughts on a Trump Jnr presidency! [Biased]

--

How big are these scoops? And I'm thankful Brenda didn't meet me as a teenager as I would've disappointed her...I always had 2, regular, scoops.

[ 24. October 2017, 19:58: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
But again, the question isn't really "do you want two scoops?" (We all do) but rather are you ok if everyone else gets 2 scoops as well


It occurs to me that statement could be taken either literally or metaphorically and both would be true
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Interesting that since McCain an Corker are not going to run again, they have been freed up to be honest about how they feel about the dafttwit. Now, Senator Flake, the junior Senator from Arizona has opened up about Daftwit.

The question is how much do you value re-election or do you what the best for your country.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I've thought of a solution. In the movie "Dave" Kevin Kline plays a Presidential look-a-like who fills in when the actual President is in a coma -- and of course does a much better job of it.

If we could hogtie Trump and send him to a Twitter-free island far across some "big water, ocean water" then someone like Alec Baldwin could take over.

But then Alec's face would effectively have to freeze that way, in the twisted facial impression he does.

There's a meme that a double has sometimes taken Melania's place, because sometimes she's looked much more comfortable with T.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I'm underwhelmed. If Corker and Flake (sounds like a breakfast cereal company) were patriots instead of Republicans, they run, and win, and fight on to slow the Trump train.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Brenda-

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A toddler would never grope pussy or make sexualized comments;

...unless that's what they'd been around. And I sometimes think that the groping may be like a little kid who needs to be told "use your words, not your fists". Not excusing the behavior, just looking into possible causes.


quote:
on the other hand a teenager would never insist on two scoops of ice cream.
Seriously? You must have been around incredibly well-behaved teenagers--or ones that don't like ice cream.
[Confused]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda-

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A toddler would never grope pussy or make sexualized comments;

...unless that's what they'd been around. And I sometimes think that the groping may be like a little kid who needs to be told "use your words, not your fists". Not excusing the behavior, just looking into possible causes.


quote:
on the other hand a teenager would never insist on two scoops of ice cream.
Seriously? You must have been around incredibly well-behaved teenagers--or ones that don't like ice cream.
[Confused]

Even if they didn't insist, they might well sneak a second scoop in the middle of the night.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The debate among POST pundits today is whether Crooked Donald is more like a toddler or a teenager. I would say that he partakes of the worst qualities of both. A toddler would never grope pussy or make sexualized comments; on the other hand a teenager would never insist on two scoops of ice cream.

Dirty old man? How'd they miss that? You know, the kind who pinch women's bums, accidentally on purpose grab their tits, make jokes about incest with their daughters, cheat on their wife (in his case wives), try to intimidate anyone who calls them out.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I'm underwhelmed. If Corker and Flake (sounds like a breakfast cereal company) were patriots instead of Republicans, they run, and win, and fight on to slow the Trump train.

This is a fantasy. After what they just said, they cannot win given where they're from.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Dave is one of my favorite schmaltzy comedies. A lovely film. I think one of my favorite parts is when Sigourney Weaver catches Kevin taking a peek at her knees, and confesses that was when she knew he wasn't her husband.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Dave is one of my favorite schmaltzy comedies. A lovely film. I think one of my favorite parts is when Sigourney Weaver catches Kevin taking a peek at her knees, and confesses that was when she knew he wasn't her husband.

I'd vote for Dave for President any day -- or for Kevin Kline.
[Axe murder]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Does this strike you as true, Americans?

quote:
The purge of "establishment" Republicans like Senator Corker and Senator Flake only helps the remaking of the GOP as a populist, nationalist party drawing the support of the white working class away from the Democrats.
from here
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Flake's speech on the Senate floor.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And here's the full text of Flake's speech.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Interesting that since McCain an Corker are not going to run again, they have been freed up to be honest about how they feel about the dafttwit. Now, Senator Flake, the junior Senator from Arizona has opened up about Daftwit.

The question is how much do you value re-election or do you what the best for your country.

As Ian implies, all this does is ensure populist replacements.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And here's the full text of Flake's speech.

Are the "Mr President"s protocol when speaking, or was he there? Or is this a direct address to him?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Are the "Mr President"s protocol when speaking, or was he there? Or is this a direct address to him?

I don't know for sure, but presumably that's addressing the President of Senate in the way that a Westminster-style House of Commons addresses the Speaker.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yes, re president of the senate--officially, that's the vice-president of the country (Pence), or a president pro tem (who's filling in).

However, if the senator really meant the things he said, then he may well have had the other president in mind, too.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Ah... Thank you both!
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
<still getting over astonishment that there really is a Senator whose name is Flake>
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Martin--

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Clinton was an adult with his Cohiba? Was grown up in his turning his back on his failed UN cover venture in Somalia green lighting the Rwandan genocide?

Actually, he said, years ago, that not helping Rwanda was his greatest regret.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Does this strike you as true, Americans?

quote:
The purge of "establishment" Republicans like Senator Corker and Senator Flake only helps the remaking of the GOP as a populist, nationalist party drawing the support of the white working class away from the Democrats.
from here
Yes, this is probably true. The sense that we are in the dying days of the GOP is palpable. The rump faction will become so dysfunctional and extreme that the vast majority of the electorate will despise them. Gerrymandering, fraud and Russian hacking, even, won't suffice to keep them in power. They've cranked themselves too far out onto a limb.

The more sane members will either form another party, or (after a couple generations of Democratic rule) will reboot.

Here, for instance, is a (free) summary of everything that the current administration is doing to ensure that people cannot retire. They no longer are working for the good of the populace. This cannot go on.

[ 25. October 2017, 13:52: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
<still getting over astonishment that there really is a Senator whose name is Flake>

"Flake" is a very common Mormon name in these parts. As is "Snow" -- giving us the lovely town of "Snowflake," named for two Mormon missionaries. The town is actually in Arizona's high country where is does snow.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Now that Jeff Flake has announced that he's not running again, this clears the way for his Primary challenger, the flaky Kelli Ward (pun intended).

Steve Bannon came to Arizona last week to campaign for her (this was before Flake's announcement). There's never been a conspiracy theory that Ward hasn't embraced -- most notably the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory (that the trails airplanes leave behind in the sky spray chemicals on humans). She's known as "Chemtrail Kelli."

As soon as John McCain announced that he had brain cancer she was ready to kick him In the gutter and start campaigning for his seat.

The hope among many Arizona Democrats is that she is so off the wall that a sane Democratic candidate (probably Representative Kyrsten Sinema) will have a much better chance of winning than if Flake were running again.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Pigwidgeon:
quote:
"Flake" is a very common Mormon name in these parts. As is "Snow" -- giving us the lovely town of "Snowflake," named for two Mormon missionaries. The town is actually in Arizona's high country where is does snow.
Fascinating. And, presumably, special... [Cool]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I have actually been to Snowflake, AZ. There was a lot of snow there then.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Even for him, this is amazingly repellent. This is from CNN, should be a free click.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Even for him, this is amazingly repellent. This is from CNN, should be a free click.

"I did very well. I'm a very intelligent person." Later, pointing to his head, he added: "One of the great memories of all time."

This comment is very telling, he’s clearly worried about his memory failing.

[ 26. October 2017, 07:40: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Even for him, this is amazingly repellent. This is from CNN, should be a free click.

If I may ask, what bit do you find so repellent? AFAICS, there's nothing new, except the recent comment about being so smart.

Thx.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Even for him, this is amazingly repellent. This is from CNN, should be a free click.

If I may ask, what bit do you find so repellent? AFAICS, there's nothing new, except the recent comment about being so smart.

Thx.

The entirety of the discourse is fearful. This is a person with the attention span of a gnat. Unmoored from time, a stranger to veracity, the description 'word salad' is exactly correct for his talk. This is not a person you would lend your car to, is it? Or hand over the care of your dog to, if you were going away for a week.

I knew this; we all know it. When we can't protest (this is a grand summary of the enormous creativity that's being pumped into the effort, but it's from the POST) all we can do is cringe and avert our eyes.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
If he achieves nothing else before he disappears down the toilet of history, The Great Debaser Of America will at least have been the cause of some amazingly creative Stuff.

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And the catalyst for helping us look at difficult leaders in history from a more realistic and personal angle.

Ivan the Terrible, for instance. Caligula. That guy with the funny mustache and no smile.

And all sorts of less high-profile people, with less power and/or less opportunity to exercise it.

Even families.

Plus realizing that their subjects really might not have been able to remove the person from power--especially without making things much worse.

Sometimes, all you can do is pursue legal means, work on damage control, wait, and hope.

[Votive]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Brenda wrote:

quote:
This is a person with the attention span of a gnat. Unmoored from time, a stranger to veracity, the description 'word salad' is exactly correct for his talk. This is not a person you would lend your car to, is it? Or hand over the care of your dog to, if you were going away for a week.
This puts me in mind of that other Republican, Mitt Romney. [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Even for him, this is amazingly repellent. This is from CNN, should be a free click.

If I may ask, what bit do you find so repellent? AFAICS, there's nothing new, except the recent comment about being so smart.

Thx.

Has any other president talked about "my generals" and "my military"? It's an affectation I personally find particularly offensive. I once knew a vicar who talked about "my churchwardens", "my sidesmen" etc.. He was a self-obsessed knob with bad hair, much like El Presidente, in fact.

In a vicar it's annoying. In a POTUS it's deeply concerning that he apparently confuses his own interests with those of his country.

(I have to confess that I only have the reporter's summary to go on, I find Trump impossible to understand or even listen to in person.)
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:


In a vicar it's annoying. In a POTUS it's deeply concerning that he apparently confuses his own interests with those of his country.

(I have to confess that I only have the reporter's summary to go on, I find Trump impossible to understand or even listen to in person.)

That's worrying. I can remember Gerald Ford, Dan Quayle, Bush jnr and Donald Rumsfeld. Is he worse than all of those?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
There never seems to be any purpose to Trump's speech, other than to promote himself and cause maximum offence to those he considers his enemies (i.e. most of the other people on the planet). He just rambles and rants, taking a pop at various random targets in passing. I can also remember the people you mention, and most of the time you could sort of see what they were getting at, even when they weren't expressing themselves very well.

I personally thought that Rumsfeld's "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" was actually rather good.

[ 27. October 2017, 09:59: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Yeah, Rumsfeld had a brain, and Bush could crack a funny.

[ 27. October 2017, 10:03: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Martin--

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Clinton was an adult with his Cohiba? Was grown up in his turning his back on his failed UN cover venture in Somalia green lighting the Rwandan genocide?

Actually, he said, years ago, that not helping Rwanda was his greatest regret.
As he caused it, I'm not surprised. Not that he could have done anything. As for the French.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:


In a vicar it's annoying. In a POTUS it's deeply concerning that he apparently confuses his own interests with those of his country.

(I have to confess that I only have the reporter's summary to go on, I find Trump impossible to understand or even listen to in person.)

That's worrying. I can remember Gerald Ford, Dan Quayle, Bush jnr and Donald Rumsfeld. Is he worse than all of those?
Worse than all of them put together, raised to the 10th power, shaken together and running over, on steroids.

Don't ever expect him to be within hailing distance of normal or healthy. He's wayyyyyy too broken, dysfunctional, and messed up. He has very rare moments of near normal, but they're *very* rare.

No offense, but anyone who analyzes him as they would a normal or somewhat off-normal president will always be mistaken.
[Angel]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Has any other president talked about "my generals" and "my military"? It's an affectation I personally find particularly offensive. I once knew a vicar who talked about "my churchwardens", "my sidesmen" etc.. He was a self-obsessed knob with bad hair, much like El Presidente, in fact.

In a vicar it's annoying. In a POTUS it's deeply concerning that he apparently confuses his own interests with those of his country.

(I have to confess that I only have the reporter's summary to go on, I find Trump impossible to understand or even listen to in person.)

The president is the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces. That link goes to the "Trump's Benghazi" thread. There was a discussion between Ian and I about the details of that.

T's comments may have gone too far, but he *is* the boss of all those generals.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I'm underwhelmed. If Corker and Flake (sounds like a breakfast cereal company) were patriots instead of Republicans, they run, and win, and fight on to slow the Trump train.

There is some thought that Flake may challenge Trump in 2020 (that is assuming Trump is still in office then).
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:


In a vicar it's annoying. In a POTUS it's deeply concerning that he apparently confuses his own interests with those of his country.

(I have to confess that I only have the reporter's summary to go on, I find Trump impossible to understand or even listen to in person.)

That's worrying. I can remember Gerald Ford, Dan Quayle, Bush jnr and Donald Rumsfeld. Is he worse than all of those?
Worse than all of them put together, raised to the 10th power, shaken together and running over, on steroids.
Just after the 2008 election, there was a facebook group formed called "I love it when I wake up in the morning and Bush isn't president". Earlier this year they posted a meme with a picture of W and the words:

"miss me yet?"
2009: nope
2010: nope
2011: nope
2012: nope
2013: nope
2014: nope
2015: nope
2016: nope
2017: oh sweet baby Jesus yes
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just after the 2008 election, there was a facebook group formed called "I love it when I wake up in the morning and Bush isn't president". Earlier this year they posted a meme with a picture of W and the words:

"miss me yet?"
2009: nope
2010: nope
2011: nope
2012: nope
2013: nope
2014: nope
2015: nope
2016: nope
2017: oh sweet baby Jesus yes

What's to miss? Incompetent response to devastating hurricane? Love of torture? "Black site" detentions? Mendaciously lying America (and several other nations) into a brutal and counter-productive war? Demonizing gay people for electoral advantage? Economically destructive tax policy and a financial regulatory strategy that crashed the world economy?

Quite honestly if you miss the George W. Bush presidency (and remember it accurately) you should be quite at home with the Donald Trump version.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just after the 2008 election, there was a facebook group formed called "I love it when I wake up in the morning and Bush isn't president". Earlier this year they posted a meme with a picture of W and the words:

"miss me yet?"
2009: nope
2010: nope
2011: nope
2012: nope
2013: nope
2014: nope
2015: nope
2016: nope
2017: oh sweet baby Jesus yes

What's to miss? Incompetent response to devastating hurricane? Love of torture? "Black site" detentions? Mendaciously lying America (and several other nations) into a brutal and counter-productive war? Demonizing gay people for electoral advantage? Economically destructive tax policy and a financial regulatory strategy that crashed the world economy?

Quite honestly if you miss the George W. Bush presidency (and remember it accurately) you should be quite at home with the Donald Trump version.

I think you're missing the point/irony of the meme. Explaining it would butcher it further.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're missing the point/irony of the meme. Explaining it would butcher it further.

I get the joke. I just don't think it's particularly funny, given that there is an actual well-organized and determined attempt to rehabilitate the public image of George W. Bush (and, more importantly, his political priorities).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps the fact that the joke isn't particularly funny is part of the irony, IYSWIM.

I don't recall much about George W's presidency, but was it so bad?

Mind you, it's hard to envisage anyone worse than the Great Pumpkin.....

IJ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

I don't recall much about George W's presidency, but was it so bad?

Ask an Iraqi. Or an Afghani. Or a victim of the 2008 recession.*

Oh, and you do not have to remember his presidency when you can remember 3 posts before your own.

*Though, in fairness, other people share that blame, including past presidents.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps the fact that the joke isn't particularly funny is part of the irony, IYSWIM.

I don't recall much about George W's presidency, but was it so bad?

Mind you, it's hard to envisage anyone worse than the Great Pumpkin.....
J
IJ

It was absolutely so bad. Remember Katrina? Financial melt down? That was the point of meme
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I don't recall much about George W's presidency, but was it so bad?

Mind you, it's hard to envisage anyone worse than the Great Pumpkin.....

It was pretty bad. More to the point, this kind of post facto rehabilitation of Republican malefactors is pretty much how someone like Trump becomes president*.

Nixon was never held accountable for subverting American democracy. His chief henchmen spent time in prison for their crimes, but Nixon demonstrated that if you're president, you're above the law. Far from "our long national nightmare [being] over", it was only just beginning.

The Reagan administration took it further, selling prohibited weapons to a state sponsor of terror in order to fund an illegal and unconstitutional war in Central America. That time not only did the president skate, his chief cronies also escaped consequences, either because of legal technicalities or through Bush Sr. being pretty openhanded with his pardon power in his final days in office. This demonstrated that not only can a president escape accountability for his criminal actions, so can his most highly placed associates.

By the time we reach Bush Jr. it became clear that the U.S. was unwilling to even officially investigate the abuses of the executive branch. The presidency (at least when headed by a Republican) was essentially free of any kind of legal consequences for criminal acts.

So you'll excuse me if I don't get a huge belly laugh out of the main process used by American presidents (with an 'R' after their names) to facilitate and excuse their own criminal behavior.

Why does Trump think he can shut down any investigation into his own misdeeds? Given the history, why wouldn't he?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Fair point
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Charges filed in federal court by the Mueller investigation.
CNN reports,
"A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.
The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are."
Oh, there are going to be some damp beds at 1600 Pennsylvania this weekend.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I'm waiting with bated breath for Monday!
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I'm waiting with bated breath for Monday!

I've got the champagne on ice. But Rachel Maddow is warning us not to expect too much too quickly-- she thinks this one will be one of the small fish they're hoping will turn
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Interesting that the JFK assassination archives have come out at about the same time. Odds on which parts of the media will focus on which? And which the press secretary will choose to focus on?
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
On the Chinese President, Xi Jinping:

"People say we have the best relationship of any president-president, because he's called president also. Now some people might call him the king of China. But he's called president."

Every programme I have watched has had someone say Trump is the only one who thought he was a king.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Charges filed in federal court by the Mueller investigation.
CNN reports,
"A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The only people I can think of who would be "briefed on the matter" would be Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and his staff. If that is, in fact, the source (purely speculative) that's a pretty egregious leak.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
On the Chinese President, Xi Jinping:

"People say we have the best relationship of any president-president, because he's called president also. Now some people might call him the king of China. But he's called president."

Every programme I have watched has had someone say Trump is the only one who thought he was a king.

To be fair, Trump also seems to think that he himself was elected king of the USA...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

It was pretty bad. More to the point, this kind of post facto rehabilitation of Republican malefactors is pretty much how someone like Trump becomes president*.

and further to your point, I'd say that this also applies to the rehabilitation of all the never-Trump Republicans who have spent the last few decades ratcheting up the political temperature.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a free click, from the Atlantic: Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist in Dallas, TX, explains why Trump is a man of God. I particularly admire how he can prove that he's in the center of God's will because he has such an expensive church building.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It was pretty bad. More to the point, this kind of post facto rehabilitation of Republican malefactors is pretty much how someone like Trump becomes president*.

and further to your point, I'd say that this also applies to the rehabilitation of all the never-Trump Republicans who have spent the last few decades ratcheting up the political temperature.
We've actually seen this movie before. Sometime between November 2008 and January 2009 America suffered one of the greatest political missing persons cases of all time. Millions upon millions of Republican supporters of George W. Bush simply vanished and, in a truly bizarre twist, millions upon millions of "independents" suddenly appeared on the American political scene in freshly creased tricorn hats and calling themselves the "Tea Party". (Oddly enough, no pods were ever found.) These "independents" were certainly never involved in politics before and had definitely never even heard of this "George W. Bush" person, but they felt very strongly about Kenyan Muslim Communist Usurpers in the White House. In another, possibly related, mass disappearance the members of the "Tea Party" now seem to have disappeared as well, though they seem to have been replaced by a roughly equal number of Republicans.

See also.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a free click, from the Atlantic: Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist in Dallas, TX, explains why Trump is a man of God. I particularly admire how he can prove that he's in the center of God's will because he has such an expensive church building.

Yes, that was intriguing. As was:

quote:
I think [Trump]’s a great role model for doing what he’s been called to do, and that is being president of the United States. He is doing a fantastic job in that way. I think he is showing strong leadership.

...

[Jeffress followed up in an email to say: “I do think President Trump is a positive role model for children. Specifically, I would be happy for my children (and now, my coming grandchildren) to emulate his work ethic, leadership skills, and patriotism.”]

The mind truly boggles. Do these people hate "the Left" so much they are blind to anyone on the right's faults? Tweeting nasty things is being a role model? Getting no legislation through is evidence of work ethic and leadership??? Oh my.

I really didn't realise you had non politicians or lobbyists sprouting this.

[ 28. October 2017, 21:12: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
When you are in heaven and Jeffress fellow moves in across the street and has trumpy and some others over for a meet-up, you'll know you're not in heaven and missed the bus CS Lewis described in [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_DivorceThe Great Divorce[/url].

Is it acceptable to pray thus?: "may the sunrise catch them soon".
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What this says to me (and it's proven by the guest preachers he's bringing in, from Fox News!!!) is that he and his entire congregation h/a/v/e t/h/e/i/r h/e/a/d/s u/p t/h/e/i/r a/s/s/e/s are deep in the right wing media bubble. There is no way for reality to get into that bubble, it's impermeable.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're missing the point/irony of the meme. Explaining it would butcher it further.

I get the joke. I just don't think it's particularly funny, given that there is an actual well-organized and determined attempt to rehabilitate the public image of George W. Bush (and, more importantly, his political priorities).
FWIW: I remember how bad Dubya was, how dysfunctional he was, and the awful things he did.

I also think T is *much* more dysfunctional, and probably a lot more dangerous. (Like wanting 10 x the current amount of nukes.)

I applaud the scattered good comments from Dubya, and IIRC doing charitable work with Bill Clinton. That does *not* make up for what he did. But it might be a sign of a little bit of personal progress. It also makes him look better than T, by comparison.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
The mind truly boggles. Do these people hate "the Left" so much they are blind to anyone on the right's faults? Tweeting nasty things is being a role model? Getting no legislation through is evidence of work ethic and leadership??? Oh my.

I really didn't realise you had non politicians or lobbyists sprouting this.

Yup. Someone--maybe PT Barnum?--said something like "you can never over-estimate the gullibility of the American people". He may also have said something about getting rich from that gullibility. (He was a circus owner, event promoter, and a con man--to some extent.)

I don't know what that pastor has been smoking, but he sure needs rehab.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What this says to me (and it's proven by the guest preachers he's bringing in, from Fox News!!!) is that he and his entire congregation h/a/v/e t/h/e/i/r h/e/a/d/s u/p t/h/e/i/r a/s/s/e/s are deep in the right wing media bubble. There is no way for reality to get into that bubble, it's impermeable.

I'd agree.

I'm sure these people have always existed. Have they been "under the radar" previously? Or ignored, predominantly, by those in charge? Is it really Trump that has allowed them to slither out into the open to spew bile and venom? Or something else?

edit: Thanks for the quote GK - applicable to any country I think!

[ 28. October 2017, 23:44: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Are they 47% real like donnie trumpie's Twitter audit score. Sad
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Those of you who had "Paul Manafort" in today's indictment betting pool, collect your winnings. If you also had "Rick Gates", you're obviously working from inside information. [Big Grin] It's still not known what Manafort and Gates are charged with, but my (hypothetical) money would be on something relating to money laundering.

This may actually be spinnable by Trump and company, given that Manafort was fired from the campaign. Expect a "devious Manafort taking advantage of poor, naïve Trump, who fired Manafort as soon as he figured out something bad was going on" narrative to develop.

And currently on Fox News . . .
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
....and breaking on BBC News as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41804740

I daresay the Twittersphere will be absolutely saturated with Trumptweets within the next hour or two (if it isn't already).

Can't someone please block the Twitter account of Putin's Orange Pup?

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
....and breaking on BBC News as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41804740

I daresay the Twittersphere will be absolutely saturated with Trumptweets within the next hour or two (if it isn't already).

Can't someone please block the Twitter account of Putin's Orange Pup?

[Help]

IJ

Putin's Orange Pup!
[Killing me]

I like it! But let's be honest, he's enough to give anyone the pip isn't he..... [Biased]
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
Last I heard, POP's tweets were strangely silent!

Go, get 'em, Mr. Mueller!!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So according to the updated version of the CNN story, the charges against Manafort are:


The conspiracy charges are the most interesting, since they imply co-conspirators.

(For reference: the Illustrated Guide to Law's section on conspiracy)

[ 30. October 2017, 13:08: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So according to the updated version of the CNN story, the charges against Manafort are:


The conspiracy charges are the most interesting, since they imply co-conspirators.

(For reference: the Illustrated Guide to Law's section on conspiracy)

Yes. My sense is they're throwing the book at him, first of all because he deserves it of course, but also to get him to turn and implicate the bigger, orange fish. That's what we're all praying for.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A friend of mine mentioned that when you say the words 'stoic endurance', the image of Paul Manafort does not leap into the mind's eye. With luck he'll sing like a canary.

What worries me now is the thought that Crooked Don will resort to pre-emptive pardons. He doesn't even have to do it more than once or twice. If enough of these rats know that Lyin' Don will get them off the hook, they'll hang together, Mafiosi-style and keep quiet.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But, if the Orange Pip does go for pre-emptive pardons, doesn't that just make them all look even more guilty? Including the Chief Pip?

As in 'the [gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks'.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What worries me now is the thought that Crooked Don will resort to pre-emptive pardons. He doesn't even have to do it more than once or twice. If enough of these rats know that Lyin' Don will get them off the hook, they'll hang together, Mafiosi-style and keep quiet.

Pardoning can be a two-edged sword. Once someone is pardoned they lose their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In other words, if they can't be convicted of anything (because they've been pardoned) they can't refuse to offer evidence against others on the grounds that it might lead to their own conviction. They can, however, still be convicted of perjury if they lie or obstruction of justice if they refuse to testify.

And over at Washington Monthly David Atkins reminds us that the only reason to hire Manafort as campaign manager was to collude with Russia.

quote:
[T]he conservative line is that while Manafort may have been involved in shady dealings, and while Trump’s family and campaign may have met with Russians promising to deliver dirt on his opponent, Trump himself was not complicit with Russia to interfere in the election.

This is almost assuredly untrue, because there was no reason to hire Manafort in the first place except to collude with Russia.

It’s hard to remember sometimes given the insanity that has occurred since, but eyebrows were raised across the spectrum when Manafort was initially hired as Trump’s campaign manager back in 2016. Manafort was an ancillary player in Republican politics and already clearly compromised. My colleague Martin Longman noted earlier this year that Manafort was closely connected to Roger Stone, himself a disgraced crackpot with his own insalubrious ties and connection to likely Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0.

Manafort was a terrible choice for campaign manager, both in terms of competence and optics. It was neither a pick designed to buoy his populist credentials, nor was it a sop to the GOP establishment that Trump desperately needed at the time. The only thing Manafort had in his favor was his close ties to Putin, and there is no conceivable reason to have hired him except to leverage those ties.

If Manafort is indeed the primary target of Mueller’s probe, it’s a guarantee that the Trump campaign absolutely intended to collude closely with Russia as a longshot path to a difficult election.

Which means that one of two things is true: either Donald Trump was not closely involved in hiring his campaign manager or the rationale for it, or he directly intended to use Russian interference to win.


 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
For those who are interested here is the (redacted) indictment against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates [PDF].
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
So the position of presidente is sort of like a king re pardons?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So the position of presidente is sort of like a king re pardons?

Kind of. Article II, §2 of the U.S. Constitution states, in part:

quote:
The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment
So the main limitations are that the president can't pardon anyone who's being impeached, and can only pardon people for "Offences against the United States", meaning that the presidential pardon power does not extend to people charged with (or convicted of) crimes by individual states.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
But will.Manafort sing like a canary with Boris and Natasha waiting in the wings to help him on his way to an unfortunate accident? He doesn't really have a Witness Protection face or demeanor.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But, if the Orange Pip does go for pre-emptive pardons, doesn't that just make them all look even more guilty? Including the Chief Pip?

As in 'the [gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks'.

IJ

"Looking guilty" doesn't seem to be a problem for this administration-- that ship sailed long ago. "Avoiding consequences" seems to be the priority, second only to "accumulating a lot of cash".
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Judge blocks Trump's transgender military ban.

[ 30. October 2017, 17:35: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Putin's Pup really isn't sitting in a sincere pumpkin patch, is he?

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Putin's Pup really isn't sitting in a sincere pumpkin patch, is he?

[Two face]

The Great Trumpkin?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Maybe it's just me, but mass cremations to hide the death count doesn't exactly say "successful disaster relief" to me. And that's aside from the very unpleasant historical resonances.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed - quite appalling. Surely, though, corpses have to be accounted for somehow, whether or not they're hurricane victims.

Meanwhile, the plot thickens (though 'it has nothing to do with the president'):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41808227

Not so much The Great Trumpkin, but more The Beginning To Look A Bit Naughty Trumpkin.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Meanwhile, the plot thickens (though 'it has nothing to do with the president'):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41808227

A couple of points about the Papadopoulos plea bargain.

It's that last point that sends a fairly clear message, and that message is "those who cooperate will be leniently treated, and those who wait will have to take their luck with a judge".

In other Papadopoulos, this seems significant:

quote:
He [Papadopoulos] was arrested on July 27. Papadopoulos indicated that he was willing to cooperate with Mueller's team, and his case was sealed after his arrest to give him time to do that. According to papers filed by his lawyer, Papadopoulos participated in multiple meetings with investigators and voluntarily turned over materials.

"Public disclosure of the defendant's initial appearance, however, would significantly undermine his ability to serve as a proactive cooperator," prosecutors wrote in the motion to seal. "In addition, public disclosure of defendant's arrest and the accompanying criminal charges may alert other subjects to the direction and status of the investigation."

I'm going to guess that "proactive cooperator" is lawyer-speak for "wearing a wire". I suspect others will reach the same conclusion and start trying to remember the details of every meeting they had with George Papadopoulos from July 27 through today.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I’m going to guess that "proactive cooperator" is lawyer-speak for "wearing a wire". I suspect others will reach the same conclusion and start trying to remember the details of every meeting they had with George Papadopoulos from July 27 through today.

Let them squirm!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Possibly I'm too jaded, but I have a horrible feeling he is going to be able to ride this out.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Me too. There have just been far too many "this will be the end of Trump" revelations-- throughout the election and since.

But seriously, this would be the cruelest of them all.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Or it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back...

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly I'm too jaded, but I have a horrible feeling he is going to be able to ride this out.

You think?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I don't hold out much hope of him being turfed out. But all I can do, for the sake of you lovely Americans, is hope for you that something gets him out.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Let him serve out his term and then decline into retirement. Anything else will be too dangerous for American democracy. If he has committed a crime, then the law must take its course. Personally, the vengeful bastard in me wants to see his children in jail.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I remember being on a road trip with my parents, and the CBC radio had frequent updates and bits of recordings of Nixon. The discussion seemed to suggest that treason was his offence. Which subverting democracy seemed to be. But then the next dude pardoned him.

These ex-presidents tend to have libraries hosted someplace apparently. Wonder who gets this dude's. Does he read? I wonder what is on his reading list.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Well, there's bound to be a shelf-full of executive orders, many of them even signed. [Two face]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a good analysis (alas from the NYT so it'll cost you a click) of how Crooked Don's supporters can keep from poisoning themselves with hypocrisy. The two rationales are 1) it's fake news, and 2) Democrats are worse. With these two rationales I believe their delusion will stand up to anything short of a nuclear war.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I don't hold out much hope of him being turfed out. But all I can do, for the sake of you lovely Americans, is hope for you that something gets him out.

Illness/dementia/total exhaustion is my guess. No need to believe his own nosnsense about how healthy he is. You only need to look at him and listen to him to see he’s fat, unwell and close to dementia/mental incapacity.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a good analysis (alas from the NYT so it'll cost you a click) of how Crooked Don's supporters can keep from poisoning themselves with hypocrisy. The two rationales are 1) it's fake news, and 2) Democrats are worse. With these two rationales I believe their delusion will stand up to anything short of a nuclear war.

And even then. NOTHING can touch this remarkable king. A true man of the people, the lowest of the low and you can never go to low.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
TOO!!!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I don't hold out much hope of him being turfed out. But all I can do, for the sake of you lovely Americans, is hope for you that something gets him out.

Thank you. [Smile]


simontoad--

Respectfully: And what of the damage he does in the meantime? Every single day? From actually wanting the nuclear war he's poking NK about, to cutting back the size of various national parks/monuments, to taking away healthcare and funding for other services? Especially when his party holds both the House and Senate, and don't show much sign of standing up to him?


np--

I don't think presidential libraries have to be hosted somewhere (univ., etc.). They can be on their own. Nixon's is, I think, at his San Clemente ranch. Carter's may be at the Carter Center.

T can read. He does well with a teleprompter. (Unless you want to go all conspiracy and speculate that someone is broadcasting the words to him, and he just repeats them. I think that's been suggested for both T and Dubya.) But he doesn't like to read; and I think there was something about having only read one book. (And/or maybe only his books?)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly I'm too jaded, but I have a horrible feeling he is going to be able to ride this out.

You think?
[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
That's egging the irony upon irony romanlion.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly I'm too jaded, but I have a horrible feeling he is going to be able to ride this out.

The American presidency is not designed for sudden changes in office, short of the death of the president. On the other hand, an investigation like this can constrain a president from actions he might otherwise take. For instance, it's unlikely the Trump administration would move to recognize the Russian claim in Crimea in the present context.

The investigation is unlikely to end in one giant, cinematically choreographed perp walk complete with swelling sound-track, but for those who want to see such a thing you're in luck. [warning: video may autoplay]

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't think presidential libraries have to be hosted somewhere (univ., etc.). They can be on their own. Nixon's is, I think, at his San Clemente ranch. Carter's may be at the Carter Center.

T can read. He does well with a teleprompter. (Unless you want to go all conspiracy and speculate that someone is broadcasting the words to him, and he just repeats them. I think that's been suggested for both T and Dubya.) But he doesn't like to read; and I think there was something about having only read one book. (And/or maybe only his books?)

Presidential libraries also preserve the personal papers and documents of the president, which is one of their more important functions. Technically such documents belong to the National Archives, but I believe they're simply considered to be on permanent loan to the presidential libraries.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
For a little color commentary, here is the write up of a self-described "cynical left-wing historian" to the Nixon Library.

quote:
They say that Orange County is home to the Happiest Place on Earth. For most people, that’s Disneyland. For a cynical left-wing historian, it is the Nixon Library. When I visited Orange County last month, it was my top priority to visit, way more than the beach (which was nice too). I was not disappointed.
It goes on from there. There was also a sequel when Loomis visited the Gerald Ford Museum and Library.

[ 31. October 2017, 12:51: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Croesos, the 'From Russia With Love' video was just awesome!

[Killing me]

Thank you!

[Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
My prediction for the Trump library has always been that he’s going to brag about having raised more money for his library than any other ex President, but still ask some private conservative college to front the money and land for the project. Then when the college asks his library committee for reimbursement for the newly constructed library, the committee will suggest that they accept pennies on the dollar in settlement.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Historical "fun" fact: the only other presidential campaign chairman ever indicted was John Mitchell.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
No prophet wrote:

quote:
I remember being on a road trip with my parents, and the CBC radio had frequent updates and bits of recordings of Nixon. The discussion seemed to suggest that treason was his offence. Which subverting democracy seemed to be.
Treason is a very limited crime, and it is the only one listed in the United States Consitution. Specifically, it is giving aid and comfort to the enemy for the purpose of overthrowing the US government.

In the case of Nixon, he was impeached under high crimes and misdemeanors which can mean about anything. But it was denying that he had any tape recordings of conversations leading up to the Watergate break-in. He was not technically trying to overthrow the government but was trying to stack the decks in his favor.

Now, in the case of Mannford, he is being charged with conspiracy against the federal government. "Collusion" has no legal definition. Conspiracy, though, can be used to show how he became a foreign agent and then tried to circumvent our tax laws. Gates also faces the same charges

George Papadopoulos plead guilty to giving false statements to the FBI in regards to his contacts with the Russian government.

But the most anyone can be charged with is conspiracy with the Russians. It does not rise top treason since, technically, we are not at war with the Russians.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
No prophet wrote:

[QUOTE] In the case of Nixon, he was impeached under high crimes and misdemeanors which can mean about anything. But it was denying that he had any tape recordings of conversations leading up to the Watergate break-in. He was not technically trying to overthrow the government but was trying to stack the decks in his favor.

Actually, Nixon was "encouraged" to resign before being impeached.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from a Canada Facebook page, and so should be a free click. Very appropriate to the season!
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
No prophet wrote:

[QUOTE] In the case of Nixon, he was impeached under high crimes and misdemeanors which can mean about anything. But it was denying that he had any tape recordings of conversations leading up to the Watergate break-in. He was not technically trying to overthrow the government but was trying to stack the decks in his favor.

Actually, Nixon was "encouraged" to resign before being impeached.
The quote isn't a quote from me.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
No prophet wrote:

[QUOTE] In the case of Nixon, he was impeached under high crimes and misdemeanors which can mean about anything. But it was denying that he had any tape recordings of conversations leading up to the Watergate break-in. He was not technically trying to overthrow the government but was trying to stack the decks in his favor.

Actually, Nixon was "encouraged" to resign before being impeached.
The quote isn't a quote from me.
Sorry! it was Gramps49. (Embedded quotes get messed up sometimes.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Looks like Trump’s constant shouting about Clinton’s emails is coming back to bite him in the bum - the way the emails were obtained was far more fishy than the emails themselves.

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Golden Key wrote:
quote:
simontoad--

Respectfully: And what of the damage he does in the meantime? Every single day? From actually wanting the nuclear war he's poking NK about, to cutting back the size of various national parks/monuments, to taking away healthcare and funding for other services? Especially when his party holds both the House and Senate, and don't show much sign of standing up to him?

Trump is a particularly offensive individual. He seems to have a life-long record of unprosecuted criminality, if a bloke I heard on the radio last night is correct. However, he doesn't seem to have molded right-wing politics in the USA in his image. Rather, he seems to have fashioned his persona to appeal to right-wing Americans. I'm worried that if he dies in office, right-wing Americans will use his death to rally their political forces in anti-democratic directions.

Also, I don't want to in any way predict or suggest someone's death, even if it might be an apparently neat solution. In Trump's case, I'm far from convinced that there would be a change in policy direction if Pence was at the helm, although the atmosphere might be a little more calm.

The alternative to death in office (discounting revolution as fanciful) is impeachment. There is almost no chance of that happening, I reckon, under this Congress. The Republicans are not going to take that step. Really, impeachment is just a story that sells advertising, unless of course the numbers change in the chambers. Then impeachment is alive again as an option. Croesus has previously set out that difficult task in this thread.

So to answer your first question directly, I don't think getting rid of Trump before his term expires will stop the damage he is doing to the USA and the world every single day.

The absolute best way the Democrats can limit Trump's damage is to take a large number of Congressional seats off Trump supporters next year. Resistance through State governments and the legal system where available is also critical.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Some excellent tweets.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The absolute best way the Democrats can limit Trump's damage is to take a large number of Congressional seats off Trump supporters next year.

To do that, they must bring forth viable candidates. As has been pointed out several times, there doesn't seem to be anyone.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No, it would be very very bad to have a martyred Saint Donald. Already he can do no wrong -- I believe I posted a link from the NY Times about this. There is a severely stupid tendency in GOP circles to canonize all their heroes; the number of items named after Ronald Reagan would depress you and the name is usually thrust upon helpless airports, highways, etc. by Congress without consulting the local population. (I live in the DC area, and everyone local knows to call the main airport National Airport, as it has always been. Only newcomers call it Reagan Airport.)
Better for Crooked Don to be driven from the scene to howls of execration and the flung fruit.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Drat, missed the editing window. This link is free and merely snarky, calling out Donald Jr. on his cluelessness and general dickitude. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
No prophet wrote:

quote:
I remember being on a road trip with my parents, and the CBC radio had frequent updates and bits of recordings of Nixon. The discussion seemed to suggest that treason was his offence. Which subverting democracy seemed to be.
Treason is a very limited crime, and it is the only one listed in the United States Consitution. Specifically, it is giving aid and comfort to the enemy for the purpose of overthrowing the US government.
Yes, treason is a highly specific crime in the U.S., but it's not that specific. According to Art. III, §3 of the U.S. Constitution:

quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
So "treason", in the strict Constitutional sense rather than vernacular usage, means either a) levying war against the United States and/or b) adhering to the enemies of the United States in a way that gives them aid and comfort. It doesn't necessarily require the intention or desire of "overthrowing the US government".

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In the case of Nixon, he was impeached under high crimes and misdemeanors which can mean about anything. But it was denying that he had any tape recordings of conversations leading up to the Watergate break-in. He was not technically trying to overthrow the government but was trying to stack the decks in his favor.

You don't have to be trying to overthrow the U.S. government to be guilty of treason under the U.S. Constitution. If you are trying to overthrow the government (and you're an American citizen) then it's definitely treason, but it's not the only thing that counts as treason.

For those who are interested here are the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. They had been approved by the House Judiciary Committee but Nixon resigned before the full House of Representatives could vote on them. They boil down to:

  1. Obstruction of Justice
  2. Abuse of Power
  3. Contempt of Congress

Certainly seems like an attempt to subvert the American government, if not necessarily overthrow it, which probably counts as "treason" in the vernacular sense, though not the Constitutional one.

[ 01. November 2017, 13:08: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The absolute best way the Democrats can limit Trump's damage is to take a large number of Congressional seats off Trump supporters next year.

To do that, they must bring forth viable candidates. As has been pointed out several times, there doesn't seem to be anyone.
Has that been pointed out? I seem to recall pointing out that the Congressional special elections so far in 2017 have all been a lot more Democratic-leaning than we would expect given a baseline of the 2016 general election. What exactly is it about Jon Ossoff or Rob Quist that you think a different candidate would have done "better" in their Republican-leaning jurisdictions?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From this side of the pond, it rather looks as though you're stuck with Generalissimo Tweeto for the foreseeable, unless Wrong-Trim nukes him first..... [Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Here is a case that Trump wishes would go away, especially in light of the recent alleged sex scandals involving producers and actors in the entertainment industry.

The plaintiff, a Susan Zervos alleges in 2007, the during the fifth season of
The Apprentice Trump forcibly kissed her twice and attacked her in a hotel room.

Trump's defense is you cannot sue a sitting President!

I wonder if Zervos wins her lawsuit (which is in a state court, not a federal court), what impact would it have leading to impeachment?

In the meantime, Trump is now all upset about his son in law, Jared Kushner, meeting a Russian operative in the Trump tower during the campaign.

Mueller is scheduled to interview Trump's Communication Directopr Hope Hicks and her involvement in the drafting of first excuse Trump about the JK meeting in Trump Tower. Was it Obstruction of Justice?

More White House staffers are expecting to be invited for an interview by Mueller.

The noose is getting tighter.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Here is a case that Trump wishes would go away, especially in light of the recent alleged sex scandals involving producers and actors in the entertainment industry.

The plaintiff, a Susan Zervos alleges in 2007, the during the fifth season of The Apprentice Trump forcibly kissed her twice and attacked her in a hotel room.

Trump's defense is you cannot sue a sitting President!

Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump is ignorant about recent history and the state of the law. I've heard it argued that Clinton v. Jones is inapplicable because that case was in federal court while Ms. Zervos is suing in a state court, but I don't see any reasoning in the linked opinion that wouldn't be equally applicable to civil suits in state courts.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Is this what Tr**p Tower looks like, by any chance?

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Donald Trump Junior tried to use Hallowe'en as a teaching lesson, or so he says in Twitter. Link to trumpy the younger's Hallowe'en Tweet.

quote:
I’m going to take half of Chloe’s candy tonight & give it to some kid who sat at home. It’s never to early to teach her about socialism. — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 31, 2017
.

The responses are worth the read. May I repeat two.
quote:
My man, "socialism" was her getting that free candy in the first place. You taking half for reasons she can't understand is capitalism
quote:
Yes, it would be HORRIFYING to see your little girl share her free candies with other kids. Let's make sure she's a real Trump.

 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Today's Atlantic Magazine is especially full of good coverage.
Not only does Lyin' Don perpetually claim that he is the victim, others abet him in this.
And, in the spirit of analyzing a tweet that is almost certainly not worth analyzing, Donald Jr.'s moronic Halloween tweet is discussed in detail.
Oh, and the ever-reliable Vanity Fair gives us a peep into the terror pit that is now the White House. He blames Jared.

[ 01. November 2017, 22:36: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Here is a case that Trump wishes would go away, especially in light of the recent alleged sex scandals involving producers and actors in the entertainment industry.

The plaintiff, a Susan Zervos alleges in 2007, the during the fifth season of
The Apprentice Trump forcibly kissed her twice and attacked her in a hotel room.

Trump's defense is you cannot sue a sitting President!

I wonder if Zervos wins her lawsuit (which is in a state court, not a federal court), what impact would it have leading to impeachment?

In the meantime, Trump is now all upset about his son in law, Jared Kushner, meeting a Russian operative in the Trump tower during the campaign.

Mueller is scheduled to interview Trump's Communication Directopr Hope Hicks and her involvement in the drafting of first excuse Trump about the JK meeting in Trump Tower. Was it Obstruction of Justice?

More White House staffers are expecting to be invited for an interview by Mueller.

The noose is getting tighter.

Look kiddiz, TANJ. Free burial at sea with band of your choice if you know what that means without any Googlin'. Alan will confirm that such childish fantasies are like why nuclear fusion will NEVER work, it's like tightening a noose on Teflon Jell-O.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
My particular fantasy, and it is fantastic, is that Trump loses the republican nomination for 2020. He leaves the party, and he and members of his family stand for every Presidential election as independents from here to eternity, splitting the conservative vote right down the middle for at least two elections and just creating a big flaming bag of poop for the conservatives to stand on for a couple of generations.

My other fantasy involves them all going to jail.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I hope someone--many someones--tries to convince T that leaving would actually make him a *winner*--which is the state of being he *must* have.

E.g., no press conferences; he could be in homes he knows, loves, and feels safe in; no more fuss with Congress; and he could tell himself (and everyone else) that, by leaving, he's smarter than Obama and much smarter than Crooked Hillary would be.

And a good many people would love him for leaving.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
My favourite is Jesus vs Satan.

Amazing to think of the scale of this. And that they may've impacted people...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
If he fires Mueller, then I think the GOP might turn on him for real. Otherwise it looks like more of the same until November 2018. With the exception of the vocal GOP minority, most Senators and House Reps do not want to alienate the Trump populist base. Until it becomes clear that Trump is an electoral liability. The November 2018 House Elections are a year off and a lot can happen in a year. I think they will be good for the Democrats, the real question will be how good.

Trump's approval rating is about 33% I think. That's made up of a sizeable number of loyal GOP voters as well as the angry brigade.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I hope someone--many someones--tries to convince T that leaving would actually make him a *winner*--which is the state of being he *must* have.

E.g., no press conferences; he could be in homes he knows, loves, and feels safe in; no more fuss with Congress; and he could tell himself (and everyone else) that, by leaving, he's smarter than Obama and much smarter than Crooked Hillary would be.

And a good many people would love him for leaving.

[Votive]

GK, is that a spiritual exercise inspired by the How to Stop Hating the Hateful thread? I like it.
[Angel]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
My spiritual exercise is science-fictional. There are many Americas, and we're in the wrong one. Over on another time line, President Hillary Clinton is buffing and polishing Obamacare so that it runs better. Vladimir Putin is chewing nails and the US Army Corps of Engineers is re-wiring Puerto Rico. (I think it was in one of Neil Gaiman's Sandman stories that the adept says, kindly, "Oh, you're from one of -those- Americas. My sympathies.")
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Well this is new, but unsurprising.

quote:
Hackers Compromised the Trump Organization 4 Years Ago—and the Company Never Noticed
The perpetrators have possible ties to Russia.

Four years ago, the Trump Organization experienced a major cyber breach that could have allowed the perpetrator (or perpetrators) to mount malware attacks from the company’s web domains and may have enabled the intruders to gain access to the company’s computer network. Up until this week, this penetration had gone undetected by President Donald Trump’s company, according to several internet security researchers.

In 2013, a hacker (or hackers) apparently obtained access to the Trump Organization’s domain registration account and created at least 250 website subdomains that cybersecurity experts refer to as “shadow” subdomains. Each one of these shadow Trump subdomains pointed to a Russian IP address, meaning that they were hosted at these Russian addresses. (Every website domain is associated with one or more IP addresses. These addresses allow the internet to find the server that hosts the website. Authentic Trump Organization domains point to IP addresses that are hosted in the United States or countries where the company operates.) The creation of these shadow subdomains within the Trump Organization network was visible in the publicly available records of the company’s domains.

<snip>

The cybersecurity expert who shared the list with Mother Jones says he could find no legitimate use for the subdomains. He notes that the full scope of the attackers’ breach of the Trump Organization domains remains unclear, but he adds that the hackers who have launched attacks from this block of IP addresses have the ability to wage highly sophisticated cyber assaults. “I’d have to imagine that the file and mail servers on the Trump Org network would be the world’s largest repository of information that could be used to gain leverage over our president,” he remarks. He also points out that this breach signals the Trump Organization did not employ secure IT: “The big thing is that they didn’t notice.”

As far as we know (so far) the "shadow domains" were only ever used for distributing malware (but we don't know for sure if that is the entire scope of what happened) and no one in the Trump Organization caught it until Mother Jones contacted them for comment a week ago. That's the quality we've come to expect from a Trump operation.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
My favourite is Jesus vs Satan.

Amazing to think of the scale of this. And that they may've impacted people...

I don't know if you're familiar with right-wing US political memes, but that Jesus Vs. Satan one is pretty boilerplate. The kind of person who would find it(or indeed, most of them) persuasive has likely seen dozens if not hundreds of other such memes, most of them not originating from Russia.

So, I wouldn't imagine that these memes played a unique or pivotal role in turning people against Clinton. If anything, their sloppy conflation of partisanism/patriotism with religion(Jesus loves Trump, God rides with the border patrol) might offend those Christians who take the First Commandment seriously. Granted, a surprising number of American conservatives DON'T seem to mind elevating their favorite country or politician to the level of God, so at the end of the day, these particular memes were probably a break-even for both sides.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This will cost you a Post click, but summarizes the startling extent of Russian interference.
This however is a free one: lots of other people that the Russians have been hacking.
And here is a summary of the Russian Facebook posts that they pushed up last year.
I don't think that Lyin' Don's position, that all this is fantasy, is tenable. There's just too much evidence.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Just an observation, though, that while those memes may seem to confirm that the average Trump voter is some holy- rolling, unsophisticated trailer- park dweller, in fact I read that the typical Trumpster makes 70K a year and is comfortably esconced in the middle class, at least here in flyover country. Dear Spouse and I had the bizarre experience last year of attending what was marketed as a Farm to Table dinner, conjuring up images of serious foodie hipsters enjoying marrow bones and microbrewed beer and whatnot...but was actually the rich, ūberconservative local country squires and our reptilian State Representative, having a self-congratualatory lovefest. Those are our Trumpkins.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
In an election close enough to decided by about 100,000 votes I don't think it's easy to decide what is and isn't "pivotal".

For example, it seems unlikely that Russia organizing anti-immigrant rallies in places like Twin Falls, Idaho was critical to keeping Idaho in the Republican column. (The last Democratic presidential candidate to win Idaho's electoral votes was Lyndon Johnson.) On the other hand, everyone who "liked" the event could be collated into a list for GOTV micro-targeting, which was probably the main purpose of the exercise in the first place.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
In other words, the most probable purpose of these ads is not to convince anyone, but rather to serve as clickbait to populate lists of likely (and in a few cases, unlikely) voters for later outreach.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, the most probable purpose of these ads is not to convince anyone, but rather to serve as clickbait to populate lists of likely (and in a few cases, unlikely) voters for later outreach.

Ah, I see. So that would explain the ostensibly pro-Clinton memes in the batch, ie. finding out who the unlikely voters are.

That makes sense, though it doesn't seem to be the narrative that is catching the public's attention. Most of what I read in comment-sections etc is people assuming that the idea was to sway voters for Trump, which in turn gives rise to the counterpoint that the ads were too ineffecutal to be of much use.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Ah, I see. So that would explain the ostensibly pro-Clinton memes in the batch, ie. finding out who the unlikely voters are.

And identifying that third category, social media users who will click on just about anything. I imagine they were probably filtered out as well.

I imagine there's been less media attention to this interpretation because it necessarily suggests a lot of close collusion with the Republican Party, i.e. the folks who would have to actually run a get-out-the-vote effort based on the lists generated. While it seems like a fairly obvious possibility, give the information currently available to the public it's still highly speculative. I can see why any established media would want to avoid such speculation.

Luckily this is the internet, where we can speculate as much as we like provided we don't libelously claim to have proof that we don't actually have.

[ 02. November 2017, 16:45: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, the most probable purpose of these ads is not to convince anyone, but rather to serve as clickbait to populate lists of likely (and in a few cases, unlikely) voters for later outreach.

Ah, I see. So that would explain the ostensibly pro-Clinton memes in the batch, ie. finding out who the unlikely voters are.

That makes sense, though it doesn't seem to be the narrative that is catching the public's attention. Most of what I read in comment-sections etc is people assuming that the idea was to sway voters for Trump, which in turn gives rise to the counterpoint that the ads were too ineffecutal to be of much use.

My suspicion is that the point of the ads was not so much to tilt the election to one candidate or the other, but to create division. Give fodder for those on the right to hate and loathe Clinton (and, by extension, her supporters) even more, and give fodder for those on the left to hate and loathe Trump (and his supporters) even more.

After all, a hostile foreign country can profit more by the U.S. being in hateful division with itself, regardless of who is in the White House. From that perspective Russia didn't need to "influence the vote" just so long as it could lay the seeds of resentment and anger in the electorate.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
My suspicion is that the point of the ads was not so much to tilt the election to one candidate or the other, but to create division. Give fodder for those on the right to hate and loathe Clinton (and, by extension, her supporters) even more, and give fodder for those on the left to hate and loathe Trump (and his supporters) even more.

After all, a hostile foreign country can profit more by the U.S. being in hateful division with itself, regardless of who is in the White House. From that perspective Russia didn't need to "influence the vote" just so long as it could lay the seeds of resentment and anger in the electorate.

I dunno. I've heard that theory before, but if you consider the amount of bile that was present in the US political discourse before, I can't imagine the Russian stuff was THAT much of a substantial injection.

As per Creosos, I can concur that convincing a few more thousand people to hate Clinton(or more likely, manifest their existing hatred of Clinton at the ballot box) could make a difference for the Electoral College in a closely fought swing state. I don't think it would make much of a difference to the overall tone of discussion nationwide.

I mean, take the ad that called for Texas to secede from gay and Muslim America. Out of all the people who liked that ad, do you think there were many who weren't already screaming bigots to begin with?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I have some knowledge of the Twin Falls Idaho situation. I grew up in the area and still have family there. Twin Falls has become a center for refugees (not just Muslim) because Chobani Greek Yogurt is produced there. The owner of Chobani happens to be an immigrant from the Middle East. He has always made it a point to hire refugees if he can. This has caused some resentment among the locals. Some locals joined The Three Percent Movement and have been very vocal in their resistance to refugee resettlement.

A couple of years ago, two Muslim boys in Twin Falls were accused of molesting and raping a white girl in an apartment complex in the community. Since they were both juveniles, the outcome was handled in the juvenile court system. But this really enflamed the Three Percenters in the area.

I can see how the Russians would want to take advantage of the hostilities of the locals. But, as the Daily Beast reported, the "SecureBorders" protest fizzled, only a handful showed up at city hall only to find the hall was closed on Saturday. As I recall the local paper only had a brief paragraph on the event.

Things are still pretty raw in Twin Falls. Just this past weekend someone placed a cross covered with pigs blood on the lawn of the local mosque. Police are investigating. Most mainline Christian clergy in the area are disavowing and denouncing the incident.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here's a particularly egregious example which I am pretty sure they'd be happy to pull again: Russians organizing a protest and a counter-protest at the same time and place. Hoping for mayhem, I do not doubt. This is a free click.
You could argue that only the gullibility and natural tendencies of Texans would render them vulnerable to this kind of string-pulling. But to get the groups into a position for murder and rioting really is fomenting trouble.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I've heard that theory before, but if you consider the amount of bile that was present in the US political discourse before, I can't imagine the Russian stuff was THAT much of a substantial injection.

[snip]

I mean, take the ad that called for Texas to secede from gay and Muslim America. Out of all the people who liked that ad, do you think there were many who weren't already screaming bigots to begin with?

But that is just the point. It does not require a substantial injection, it just requires a small effort to keep us at each other's throats. For example, the Texas thing would only appeal to those who were already screaming bigots, but the point was not to create more, but to validate the ones that exist. To convince them that there were more like them out there. And, so validated, they continue being screaming bigots--now feeling like they are part of a larger (albeit imaginary) whole.

The point is to divide: to cause us to sneer at the right-wing bigots or the left-wing socialists (as one's inclinations may choose), to exploit the Echo Chamber effect so that, once having picked a side, we are convinced that we are part of a larger Group-Who-Think-Like-Me. You know, the ones who "really get it" as opposed to those scummy, lying, deceptive, human refuse who don't agree with our prejudices.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was found that Russia influence was found in, oh, Brexit and in Catalan and in any movement that pushes to divide us into smaller and smaller pieces, hating each other's guts. Brenda's example of Russia pushing both the protest and the counter-protest makes perfect sense in that context. Division is the goal.

It follows from this that the most effective weapon to counter such practices is tolerance instead of declaring others intolerable. Maybe what we need, is another Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Hedgehog,

I think there are some fairly obvious problems with the strategy to counter the effect of homophobes (and presumably racists and other bigots) feeling that they have more public support than they actually do by . . . giving them real and actual public support instead of fake Russian internet support. A strategy of "countering" bigotry by making common cause with and giving public approbation to bigots seems unlikely to work.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think there are some fairly obvious problems with the strategy to counter the effect of homophobes (and presumably racists and other bigots) feeling that they have more public support than they actually do by . . . giving them real and actual public support instead of fake Russian internet support. A strategy of "countering" bigotry by making common cause with and giving public approbation to bigots seems unlikely to work.

I'm not clear where I advocated "real and actual public support" of bigots. Are you interpreting "tolerance" as being the equivalent of "support"? If so, I do not see them as being at all the same thing. I see tolerance as not responding to hate with hate, but also advocating that bigots behave with more tolerance of those that disagree with them as well. But one cannot teach tolerance by being intolerant with others.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I dunno. I've heard that theory before, but if you consider the amount of bile that was present in the US political discourse before, I can't imagine the Russian stuff was THAT much of a substantial injection.

Which is part of the reason why I think a scenario like the following is not unlikely:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16588964/america-epistemic-crisis

It's just Iran-Contra turned up to 11.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Dear Spouse and I had the bizarre experience last year of attending what was marketed as a Farm to Table dinner, conjuring up images of serious foodie hipsters enjoying marrow bones and microbrewed beer and whatnot...but was actually the rich, ūberconservative local country squires and our reptilian State Representative, having a self-congratualatory lovefest. Those are our Trumpkins.

Profound sympathies to both of you. And illuminating re Trump supporters.

Not sure how you coped, BTW.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Barnabas: When we arrived, we seemed to be one of the few couples who didn't know anyone else other than the host farmers, whom we know casually just from buying eggd and produce. We sat down next to a seemingly harmless Foxy Grandpa who was fairly friendly, but then the tables started filling up with Stepford wives, dressed much posher than one wkuld expect for a meal in a pole barn, and their taciturn husbands. As we perused the menu, it became clear that much of the farm to table fare actually came via the local supermarket, and that this waa not going to be the culinary experience we had hoped for. To make matters worse, there was no alcohol. Then our Congresscritter and his spouse showed up, and sat at our table, and DS gave me a look that suggested it might be a long, quiet ride home. We managed to make small talk with our table neighbors about antiques and about historical landmarks in the county, and actually made it through dessert before fleeing. " YOU OWE ME," was all DS said.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
[Killing me]

Perhaps it's only funny from the other side of the planet, but I pictured the politician as the corrupt senator from The Godfather who was a guest at the baptism (?) of one of Michael Corleone's kids. You know, the massive party at the estate.

I'll bet the mafia puts on a better spread than any hipster arriviste.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks Crœsos, Stetson, Hedgehog, and anyone I've missed, for the information about the memes and their likely purposes: much appreciated.

I must say this made my Friday.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
" YOU OWE ME," was all DS said.

[Big Grin] Yes, had a few of those moments. Often, they took the sting out.

It is an odd feature of Trump's support base that it includes both arrivistes and those (e.g.in the Rust Belt) who have lost out. You can't help but think that if they were at the same dining table, they'd end up shaking one another warmly by the throat. But I suppose the losers-out wouldn't get invited.

My guess is that many of the Rust Belt supporters will melt away when faced with the reality of Trump's non-delivery of anything much for them. It will feed their disillusionment. Whether it will also feed a Democratic revival in the House remains to be seen.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I dunno. I've heard that theory before, but if you consider the amount of bile that was present in the US political discourse before, I can't imagine the Russian stuff was THAT much of a substantial injection.

Which is part of the reason why I think a scenario like the following is not unlikely:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16588964/america-epistemic-crisis

It's just Iran-Contra turned up to 11.

That reminds me of this flase-flag from the 2008 Republican primaries.

Thing is, though, NAMBLA supposedly parading at an anti-racist rally, like Romney supposedly preaching the more heterodox elements of Mormonism in the Bible Belt, are things that, if taken at face value, would create a lot of controversy and confrontation, detrmimental to their respective targets. Because they are just so freakish and out-there for most people(the NAMBLA stuff moreso, but God's multiple wives would also be a deal-breaker for a lot of fundamentalists).

I'm not quite sure I see the same degree of outrage being generated by, for example, the fairly generic pro-Black Lives Matter meme that the Russians were posting on Facebook. Even opponents of BLM know that it's an existing group, and aren't likely to become more offended by what they see in the ad. The only way I could see it working is if the ads furthered the perceived linkage between BLM and the Clinton campaign, but(from what I recall), they don't do that.

And what on earth would someone be trying to stoke up with the gay-themed Bernie Sanders colouring book? I guess if it were put up during the primaries, it might help Sanders get a few more votes from the glbqt demographic(where he was weak), thus undermining Clinton.

Or just tar the whole Democratic party as a bunch of sodomite-loving perverts? Odd that they would choose Sanders as the conduit for that, since he was the less prominent face of the party.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And what on earth would someone be trying to stoke up with the gay-themed Bernie Sanders colouring book? I guess if it were put up during the primaries, it might help Sanders get a few more votes from the glbqt demographic(where he was weak), thus undermining Clinton.

The point isn't one of the individual stories - but the fact that large numbers of people believe such stories, and that there is a partisan set of media institutions that thrive on pushing such views. As the article says:

"Say he pardons everyone. People will argue on cable TV about whether he should have. One side will say up, the other will say down. Trump may have done this, but what about when Obama did that? What about Hillary’s emails? Whatabout this, whatabout that, whatabout whatabout whatabout?

There is no longer any settling such arguments. The only way to settle any argument is for both sides to be committed, at least to some degree, to shared standards of evidence and accuracy, and to place a measure of shared trust in institutions meant to vouchsafe evidence and accuracy.

The subject of climate change offers a crystalline example here. If climate science does its thing, checks and rechecks its work, and then the Republican Party simply refuses to accept it ... what then?"
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Russian social-media posts exort Americans to violence. The old 'let's you and him fight' ploy.
What is frightening about Lyin' Don's steady denial of Russian interference is that he then has a perfect reason to do nothing to prevent more. Next Tuesday is election day in some US states. It is 367 days to the 2018 elections. Since nothing is going to be done to prevent Russian meddling, it's going to get very bad in the next year.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Chris Stiles wrote:

quote:
The point isn't one of the individual stories - but the fact that large numbers of people believe such stories, and that there is a partisan set of media institutions that thrive on pushing such views.
Well, just for the record, the Bernie Sanders colouring book wasn't a story, it was just a page from...a Bernie Sanders colouring book.

Based on Slate's intro, it would seem that it was from an actual, pro-Sanders colouring book.

Though it's not clear to me if the gay theme was part of the original book, or an overlay by the spammer. In any case, we're obviously supposed to be connecting Sanders with gays.

(And yes, the English phrasing in the post screams non-native speaker.)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This will amuse, the latest release from the Mordor press office.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
The Pickwick Papers are talking about a link between the Commerce Secretary and a company he has an interest in trading with embargoed Russians. The link is a teaser for a show tonight on the telly. I'm sure there are similar reports about to air around the world, as its all part of a massive data dump from a tax haven company.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a long but excellent piece from Vanity Fair (and free!) digging into how grossly the current Administration is abusing their trust. Not only is there no interest in governing, but they are actively malevolent, destroying institutions of undisputed value.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Feeding koi takes too long.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thoughts on the paradise papers?

quote:
Fresh evidence of links between the highest levels of Donald Trump’s administration and associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin have been revealed in a massive leak of documents from firms and corporate registries specialising in tax minimisation and financial secrecy.
I still believe nothing will touch the Orange-Skinned Groping Sexist Menace until the next election [save something illegal], but it does give me hope that news of his and his people's dealings may have some impact on his voters. Though I heard a stat that 98% of those who voted for him were still happy with their choice. So I suppose I may as well give up now.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, we can at least live in hope that the Russians' activities will bring down The Great Trumpolino - though the collateral damage to what was once a great country (the US of A, I mean) will be tremendous.

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'd rather hope for something that can actually happen. Like a fully transparent Democrat leadership process in 6 years time, that successfully woos the working class.

[ 06. November 2017, 14:46: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Feeding koi takes too long.

Abe dropped first.
Doesn't this arsewipe do enough actual stupid, irresponsible things for people to complain about?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Pity someone doesn't dump President Arsewipe (and what an insult that is to innocent arses) into a pond full of fish.

Piranhas, preferably.

Hungry ones....

[Devil]

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Pity someone doesn't dump President Arsewipe (and what an insult that is to innocent arses) into a pond full of fish.

Piranhas, preferably.

Hungry ones....

[Devil]

IJ

You want to poison poor, innocent piranhas?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Oh dear.

[Hot and Hormonal]

I hadn't thought of that. Sorry, fishy guys...

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I know this probably belongs in Hell...

Sorry if I missed it here previously.

Buy now for Christmas, for the relative you hate.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But spare a thought for this poor, innocent little beagle, who app-ears to have been invaded by the Great Gropo (or an avatar of his)...

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Clearly, the Secret Service has been at work.

Let's try again.

IJ
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Clearly, the Secret Service has been at work.
[...]

Nah. You did put 'http//' in front of the addy, which - if anything - only works if is's 'http://'. Just colon-ic irritation then, no waterboarding.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Oops, so I did. [Hot and Hormonal]

I blame the malevolent influence of The Chief Arsewipe...

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the Post, but the headline tells all. The vaunted GOP tax reform bill is finely adjusted to benefit real estate tycoons. Even if we cannot see his tax returns, we can deduce what Crooked Don's finances are like. Good to know, eh? That Ivanka and Jared will not go hungry, or want for that fourth yacht.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Ian

Hey, I was born on June 14!
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Celebrate Gramps49! Get your own T Bear.

Then fill it with voodoo needles.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Feeding koi takes too long.

Abe dropped first.
Doesn't this arsewipe do enough actual stupid, irresponsible things for people to complain about?

Sorry. Did not mean to spread fake news.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
T also spoke publicly about how tough the US is on anyone who challenges it, and how unpleasant the results can be.

In Japan.

[Frown]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But surely Japan is only a little group of island-things in a great big ocean-thing, inhabited by small, foreign-looking people.

It doesn't matter what he says, as long as they realise that America Is Great Again!

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I think I now understand that Trump is a total dick. I'm getting bored with his act and I want a statesman again. [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I remember 'No Drama' Obama. I could do with a big slice of no drama about now.
And I'm sure you remember the days (but a year ago) when nobody knew who the secretary of commerce was. I still don't. She or he was a totally normal human being who did a job well. Or secretary of education -- mothers do not raise their children up to be secretary of education; you can't name Obama's and neither can I. We could let competent people quietly do their jobs, and relax. The internet was full of kitten pictures!
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But surely Japan is only a little group of island-things in a great big ocean-thing, inhabited by small, foreign-looking people.

It doesn't matter what he says, as long as they realise that America Is Great Again!

IJ

And they really need to get over that Hiroshima business. They should understand that it was just a diplomatic approach to get their attention; it wasn't about weapons.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed, and, in any case, Great America now has lots of much biglier bombs!

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But surely Japan is only a little group of island-things in a great big ocean-thing, inhabited by small, foreign-looking people.

It doesn't matter what he says, as long as they realise that America Is Great Again!

IJ

And they really need to get over that Hiroshima business. They should understand that it was just a diplomatic approach to get their attention; it wasn't about weapons.
And the War in the Pacific was caused by the lack of ability to compromise...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think I now understand that Trump is a total dick. I'm getting bored with his act and I want a statesman again. [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]

It took you this long to figure that out?

But, then, you are ahead of a massive number of Americans, so...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Oy vey, no way *this* could go wrong...

S. Korea has invited a former "comfort woman" to a banquet honoring Trump. (In WWII, Japan abducted many Korean schoolgirls and women as sex slaves for the Japanese military.)

Skimming through articles, it looks like the SK/Japan agreement to put the whole thing to rest hasn't worked, and SK is using this opportunity to signal that.

However...why in the world would they put that woman around another abuser? Who may not even know or understand what happened, and is likely to say something crude and offensive???

I don't think the banquet's happened yet. If I find a balanced, mainstreamish article, I'll post a link.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Thank the Lord. They're calling the state of Virginia for the Democrats, bigly. Also New Jersey -- two Democratic governors. Lyin' Don is going to hate this.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
S. Korea has invited a former "comfort woman" to a banquet honoring Trump.

[brick wall]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I worry that he might say, publicly or directly to the woman, "Comforting soldiers in war time? What a great idea! I'm sure they appreciated the comfort."

And/or try to get some comfort from her himself. Or from any younger woman there, who might be more his demographic.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Wouldn't it be great if getting an endorsement from Don the Con or his minions became a kiss of death for any candidate? Maybe Virginia and New Jersey are just the beginning...
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Oy vey, no way *this* could go wrong...

S. Korea has invited a former "comfort woman" to a banquet honoring Trump. (In WWII, Japan abducted many Korean schoolgirls and women as sex slaves for the Japanese military.)

Skimming through articles, it looks like the SK/Japan agreement to put the whole thing to rest hasn't worked, and SK is using this opportunity to signal that.

However...why in the world would they put that woman around another abuser? Who may not even know or understand what happened, and is likely to say something crude and offensive???

I don't think the banquet's happened yet. If I find a balanced, mainstreamish article, I'll post a link.

If you don't have a reference for this that you're willing to cite, what makes you think it's even true in the first place?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Because I first happened upon it on an English-language Japanese news TV show, while flipping channels. It was first on the news crawl at the bottom of the screen, then in a brief news story.

I then did a Duck Duck Go search on "trump korea banquet comfort woman". Almost every hit was from Japanese news. Given the topic, I figured it would be better to wait until there was coverage that might be more balanced.

I'm sorry for any confusion that caused. I should've explained further. I'm having a rather bumpy day, and so are my computer and my Web connection.

Try Bloomberg News.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Noting Abe's success with the "Making the Alliance Great Again" hat, I'm looking for suggestions for a hat four our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to give to Don when he comes to our shores.

I'm thinking: Making Offshore Detention Great Again
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Making coal great again?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Pity the Japanese PM doesn't have a different name - whenever I read Abe, I envisage President Lincoln...

And I wonder what he would have thought about the present encumbrance of the White House?

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I won't post the links because they're all over the papers. But the off-year elections were held yesterday in the US, and the GOP took a thumping.

Headlines include:
Republicans seek new path after failure
Trump was on the ballot in Virginia. He lost.
The Limits of Trumpism
Virginia Rejects Your Hateful Politics, Mr. Trump
The G.O.P. Should Be Scared by Virginia

Only 364 days to the 2018 elections!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Wouldn't it be great if getting an endorsement from Don the Con or his minions became a kiss of death for any candidate? Maybe Virginia and New Jersey are just the beginning...

Ed Gillespie (the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia) tried an interesting electoral strategy that might be described as "Trumpism without Trump". His campaign involved a lot of race-baiting, immigrant bashing, and moonlight-and-magnolias sentimentality about Confederate monuments, but Gillespie avoided campaigning with, or even mentioning, Donald Trump. It was noted that the last president not to actively campaign for his party's candidate for Governor of Virginia* was Richard Nixon in 1973, during the depths of Watergate. Gillespie seems to have correctly noted that Donald Trump is incredibly unpopular, but it appears that "Trumpism without Trump" is also not very popular at the moment.


--------------------
*It's an odd-year election and Virginia is right next to the District of Columbia, so it's geographically convenient and there aren't many other races the president has to pay attention to at the time
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Only 364 days to the 2018 elections!

363. The 2018 general elections will be held on November 6, 2018.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Oy vey, no way *this* could go wrong...

S. Korea has invited a former "comfort woman" to a banquet honoring Trump. (In WWII, Japan abducted many Korean schoolgirls and women as sex slaves for the Japanese military.)

Skimming through articles, it looks like the SK/Japan agreement to put the whole thing to rest hasn't worked, and SK is using this opportunity to signal that.

However...why in the world would they put that woman around another abuser? Who may not even know or understand what happened, and is likely to say something crude and offensive???

I don't think the banquet's happened yet. If I find a balanced, mainstreamish article, I'll post a link.

The woman hugged Trump at the banquet. Here is an article and photo from the Korea Herald.

I think the chances that Trump would sexually assault the woman in front of TV cameras are pretty remote. I guess you could complain about the symbolism, ie. a known groper gets to look like a sensitive-guy by hugging a rape victim, but I'm pretty sure it was the Korean government that arranged this meeting, and they likely didn't force the woman to do anything she didn't want to do.

The comfort-women are a pretty major issue over here, and there has been quite a bit of pushback against the deal that was signed between Japan and Korea in 2015, with Mr. Moon's side of the political spectrum leading the resistance.

They also apparently served shrimp that was announced as having been caught near Dok-do, that being another major point of contention between Korea and Japan.

[ 08. November 2017, 15:28: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Quite a lot of perhaps not-so-subtle stuff going on. I wonder how much of it registers with The Great Trumpolino?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Quite a lot of perhaps not-so-subtle stuff going on. I wonder how much of it registers with The Great Trumpolino?

[Paranoid]

IJ

He probably just thinks "OF COURSE they want me to side with them on this issue, I'm the head honcho of the free world! I make things happen!"

I doubt he really cares if he's seen as interfering in a bilateral issue between Korea and Japan. In fairness, I doubt the Koreans care either.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Are the Koreans perhaps having a bit of esoteric fun at Gropo the Great's expense?

It can't be that difficult, so to do...

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I wish that Prime Minister Abe had vomited on Trump.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
My sympathies are with Bush. Whatever your view of his presidency, being taken suddenly ill was not his fault.

OTOH, The Lord Of Greatness covered in projectile chunder is an appealing picture.....

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I wish that Prime Minister Abe had vomited on Trump.

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
My sympathies are with Bush. Whatever your view of his presidency, being taken suddenly ill was not his fault.

It may not have been his fault, but it was a roundabout boon to the Japanese language. Before that incident there was no word in Japanese meaning "to vomit" that was acceptable to use in polite company. Now there's "bushusuru", so Japanese speakers have a way to specify vomiting without having to resort to what is regarded as gutter language.

Just another illustration of the ways the Bush family have enriched human cultures across the globe! [Projectile]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O well - good often comes of evil things....

[Paranoid]

Jolly embarrassing for Bush, though. I was once taken ill ( [Projectile] ) on the train home, so I have an inkling of how he must have felt...

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Another grand example is the Chinese term "Bushfeet." These are chicken feet, which are a delicacy in China. They are not very popular on menus in the US, however, although a great deal of chicken is eaten in the form of Buffalo wings, nuggets, etc. So there are a lot of extra chicken feet, and George W. presided over a trade deal that got them sold in China. Everybody happy, and all those American chicken feet in China are named for him.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Another grand example is the Chinese term "Bushfeet." These are chicken feet, which are a delicacy in China. They are not very popular on menus in the US, however, although a great deal of chicken is eaten in the form of Buffalo wings, nuggets, etc. So there are a lot of extra chicken feet, and George W. presided over a trade deal that got them sold in China. Everybody happy, and all those American chicken feet in China are named for him.

*tangent* I presided over a funeral for a Chinese gentleman, and was invited to a lovely dim sum lunch afterwards. The relatives were all fighting over who got the chicken's feet, but they insisted I had to try it first. Not bad.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Together, our nations remind the world of the boundless potential of societies that choose freedom over tyranny, and who set the free. And we will free, and we will sacrifice, and we will hope, and we will make things beautiful, especially the aspirations of your people.
Donald Trump giving a toast in South Korea.

Is it just me, or is he becoming even more incoherent?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Together, our nations remind the world of the boundless potential of societies that choose freedom over tyranny, and who set the free. And we will free, and we will sacrifice, and we will hope, and we will make things beautiful, especially the aspirations of your people.
Donald Trump giving a toast in South Korea.

Is it just me, or is he becoming even more incoherent?

I was going to try a parody in reply, but I do not think I could manage a semblance without a litre of rum and a blow to the cranium.
My favourite line from your link is
quote:
Perhaps it sounded better in the original Russian.

 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I won't post the links because they're all over the papers. But the off-year elections were held yesterday in the US, and the GOP took a thumping.

Headlines include:
Republicans seek new path after failure
Trump was on the ballot in Virginia. He lost.
The Limits of Trumpism
Virginia Rejects Your Hateful Politics, Mr. Trump
The G.O.P. Should Be Scared by Virginia

Only 364 days to the 2018 elections!

Sorry to possibly rain on your parade, but how big is this, really?

I know The Guardian, et al, will make a big deal of any failure with Trump in charge, and why not?, we all need to feel good, but I sometimes feel any defeat for an unpopular leader is now seen as the beginning of the end in the media. And it sometimes isn't.

I could be way off. I don't know your electoral system. But I don't want to get my hopes up either. Been dashed before.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I won't post the links because they're all over the papers. But the off-year elections were held yesterday in the US, and the GOP took a thumping.

Headlines include:
Republicans seek new path after failure
Trump was on the ballot in Virginia. He lost.
The Limits of Trumpism
Virginia Rejects Your Hateful Politics, Mr. Trump
The G.O.P. Should Be Scared by Virginia

Only 364 days to the 2018 elections!

Sorry to possibly rain on your parade, but how big is this, really?
Most of the significance of last night's election is in the medium- to long-term. It's another data point backing up previous indications that the American electorate has shifted 4-6 percentage points towards the Democrats since November 2016. I discuss some of the implications in the linked post, but another implication is that this will likely be a further anchor on any Republican legislative efforts. 2018 looks like a very tough year for the Republicans if this shift holds. I'd expect the present steady trickle of Congressional Republicans announcing their retirement to increase over the next few months. (Hi there, Congressmen Poe and LoBiondo!) It's a lot easier to move into your post-electoral career in lobbying or consulting if you don't have the stench of defeat clinging to you. Any Republican wishing to remain in Congress now has to factor in things like Maine voting rather overwhelmingly to take advantage of the Medicaid expansion, which makes their stated agenda of Obamacare repeal look even less popular. Given the difficulty Trump has had getting legislation passed, this throws a rather large bucket of water on an already weak and flickering legislative flame.

So Trump will likely become even more reliant on actions he can take unilaterally through executive action to pursue his agenda. These are pretty substantial, particularly in the areas he cares most about like cruelty to immigrants, draconian law enforcement, and gutting pollution regulations.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks Crœsos; I greatly appreciate your explanations.

Is there any thought on the Republicans who may replace those fleeing the SS Trump as the iceberg nears? Are they a new breed of socially-liberal/economically-conservative Republicans, who may have broader appeal? Are they your typical current Republican? Or does it vary widely by area, as I suspect?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Are the Koreans perhaps having a bit of esoteric fun at Gropo the Great's expense?

I wouldn't think so, no.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a long (but free) interview of some diehard Trump supporters. Very enlightening. It seems that there is nothing he could do that would disillusion them or alienate them; they love him to the death.
In my humble opinion these people are lost. In the final analysis, the body politic has to decide: listen to unreasonable people? Or not? If they insist, I'm willing to go with not.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And this one is too fine to pass up. (A free click, too.) Women are pretty mad and we've seen it in more ways than one this year.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I thought this an interesting visual for all politics geeks here.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a long (but free) interview of some diehard Trump supporters. Very enlightening. It seems that there is nothing he could do that would disillusion them or alienate them; they love him to the death..

From the article "Trump’s probably the most diligent, hardest-working president we’ve ever had in our lifetimes. It’s not like he sleeps in till noon and goes golfing every weekend, like the last president did"

I get the feeling that in theory a lot of these kind of GOP supporters would be quite in favour of increased social spending - it just irks them more that minoritues would be able to claim them too.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a long (but free) interview of some diehard Trump supporters. Very enlightening. It seems that there is nothing he could do that would disillusion them or alienate them; they love him to the death..

From the article "Trump’s probably the most diligent, hardest-working president we’ve ever had in our lifetimes. It’s not like he sleeps in till noon and goes golfing every weekend, like the last president did"


Ike was the third most popular Republican president and about tenth overall and he was notoriously lazy, spending quite a lot of time in bed.

There's a lot to be said for a boss who confines himself to the big issues and lets his subordinates get on with the job. Of course, you need capable subordinates.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Golfing would not be an issue except for the rank hypocrisy of it; you can find plenty of tweets from Crooked Don denouncing Obama for playing golf. There's also the kleptocracy angle; Lyin' Don only ever plays at his own golf clubs. He says it is because they are the bigliest and most gilded, but it also puts large sums into his pocket because his attendants have to be fed, housed, etc. For the same reason whenever he dines out in DC he goes across the street to the Trump Hotel. It is clear that he's making out like a bandit.

There was a story about the Houston hurricane victims earlier this season in the Post. They interviewed the survivors and learned about the support they had got from FEMA and so on, to rehouse and rebuild. Very good, exactly what the federal government ought to do, and the recipients were grateful. But when asked whether the victims in Puerto Rico should get similar benefits (remember that Puerto Ricans are US citizens) the Texans said no. Do as you would be done by has no meaning there. I guess the Puerto Rican brownness was an insuperable obstacle; in their minds only white people should get benefits.

This also extends to guns. The Second Amendment apparently is only for white people. If you are a black person carrying a gun your life is going to be short.

[ 09. November 2017, 13:28: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
This morning CBS news reported that FEMA is offering to relocate Puerto Rican residents to the mainland on a temporary basis as a way to relieve the congestion and squaller at relief centers on the island.

In other news, it is being reported that the Trump administration is holding up the merger of AT&T and Time Warner because Trump wants AT&T to divest itself of CNN. It seems he wants to kill CNN for being FAKE NEWS
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Sinos sais wrote:

quote:
There's a lot to be said for a boss who confines himself to the big issues and lets his subordinates get on with the job. Of course, you need capable subordinates.


Heh. That reminds me of this magazine cover, which I remember seeing on the newstands at the time it came out.

Less than a month later, Iran-Contra broke.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
There are also plenty of stories about Trump cheating at golf.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
There are also plenty of stories about Trump cheating at golf.

At this point it wouldn't surprise me to find that he cheats at solitaire.
 
Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
There are also plenty of stories about Trump cheating at golf.

At this point it wouldn't surprise me to find that he cheats at solitaire.
It's not cheating if you announce it to the people around you, as my mom taught me. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
There are also plenty of stories about Trump cheating at golf.

At this point it wouldn't surprise me to find that he cheats at solitaire.
It would surprise me, since it would indicate that Donald Trump has the concentration and patience necessary to play solitaire.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Today's news:

Kim Jong-un called Trump, "old."
Trump called him, "short and fat."

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Nyah! Nyah! [Razz]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Today's news:

Kim Jong-un called Trump, "old."
Trump called him, "short and fat."

[Disappointed]

No, no, Trump would never do that!

quote:
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Today's news:

Kim Jong-un called Trump, "old."
Trump called him, "short and fat."

[Disappointed]

We're just immensely grateful that, unlike in the Republican primary debates, they have so far declined to compare the sizes of their male genitalia.

So far.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
It looks like Donald Trump, Jr. has a secret pen pal.

quote:
Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year’s presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee’s oldest son and campaign surrogate. “A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch,” WikiLeaks wrote. “The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is ‘putintrump.’ See ‘About’ for who is behind it. Any comments?” (The site, which has since become a joint project with Mother Jones, was founded by Rob Glaser, a tech entrepreneur, and was funded by Progress for USA Political Action Committee.)

The next morning, about 12 hours later, Trump Jr. responded to WikiLeaks. “Off the record I don’t know who that is, but I’ll ask around,” he wrote on September 21, 2016. “Thanks.”

That seems an awful lot like receiving hacked information and/or stolen data, in this case in the form of someone else's password. It also seems to make a lie of Wikileak's repeated assertions that it had no preference in the 2016 presidential race.

quote:
The messages, obtained by The Atlantic, were also turned over by Trump Jr.’s lawyers to congressional investigators. They are part of a long—and largely one-sided—correspondence between WikiLeaks and the president’s son that continued until at least July 2017. The messages show WikiLeaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked, actively soliciting Trump Jr.’s cooperation. WikiLeaks made a series of increasingly bold requests, including asking for Trump’s tax returns, urging the Trump campaign on Election Day to reject the results of the election as rigged, and requesting that the president-elect tell Australia to appoint Julian Assange ambassador to the United States.
The bit about getting Assange appointed Australia's ambassador to the U.S. was a nice touch, I thought.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
The bit about getting Assange appointed Australia's ambassador to the U.S. was a nice touch, I thought.
/triggered
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If you have been following the highly convolute and thoroughly contemptible adventures of Roy Moore, it has come to this. The GOP is counting upon Crooked Donald to come back from Asia and make the awful Moore go away. To save the seat for the party, they plan to have Jeff Sessions run as a write-in candidate; since he had the job before (and by resigning to become Attorney General threw the seat open for this off-year election in the first place) it is hoped he can win it. And this would allow Lyin' Don to find another, more pliable Attorney General.
[Ultra confused] [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
The Congressional Republicans seem like one of those old cartoons, where a character runs off the edge of a cliff, and continues running in place mid-air--not realizing their situation. Then they look down, and fall.

I'm not sure they've looked down yet.

Unfortunately, they can still cause trouble while they're up there.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I hope so. To me it seems more like when Wiley Coyote paints a fake tunnel on a hill and the roadrunner runs right thru it-- but when Coyote tries it he smacks against the hill. Since day 1 there has been one thing after another that should have been their death knell, but nothing seems to stick. Meanwhile, we Dems get taken down by rumors of child sex rings in the basement of pizza parlors that don't have basements.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
In the meantime, Jeff Sessions is asking officials to look into whether a special prosecutor is needed to investigate the Clinton Foundation and Obama administration concerning a
Russian nuclear energy agency acquisition of United States’ uranium.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I wonder if that is not Sessions' ploy to curry favor with his boss. Just because Crooked Don has asked for this doesn't mean he will get it, but pretending to look into it keeps him quiet for a while. Perhaps Sessions would rather go back to the Senate after all. He seems definitely to have been promoted beyond his level of competence. Does he look back on happier days at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
In the meantime, Jeff Sessions is asking officials to look into whether a special prosecutor is needed to investigate the Clinton Foundation and Obama administration concerning a Russian nuclear energy agency acquisition of United States’ uranium.

The actual letter Sessions sent can be found here [PDF]. Ben Wittes of Lawfare has a twitter thread discussing two general possibilities of what Sessions is doing here. The tl;dr version (although it's not really that long) is:

  1. Sessions is caving to Trump to launch a politically motivated investigation of Trump's election opponent, something that's even more egregious when you take into consideration that Sessions is supposed to have recused himself from any investigation into the 2016 election.
    -or-
  2. Sessions is responding to specific requests [PDF] for a special counsel on certain matters by the House Committee he'll be testifying in front of today. This letter allows Sessions to say that "senior federal prosecutors" are looking into this and will make recommendations, which either he or Rosenstein will act on as appropriate. This avoids the unpleasantness of telling an oversight committee that they're a bunch of conspiracy mongers.

Whichever of these you consider more likely depends on your assessment of Sessions' character, but the text of the letter as written makes me lean towards interpretation #2.

As a side note, I'm not sure why a special counsel would be necessary to investigate either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Special counsels are typically used for situations where the government investigates itself, particularly if it's investigating the Justice Department, the President, or any other government bureau or department which may be able to influence those normally tasked with investigating whatever is being investigated. (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) Since Clinton and Obama are outside the government now, any investigation of them specifically shouldn't require a special counsel. This seems to be a case of trying to create a false equivalence. The idea seems to be that if the Republican president* has a special counsel investigating him and his associates, then there should be one checking out prominent Democrats too. [Roll Eyes]

[ 14. November 2017, 14:04: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I feel an overwhelming impulse to apologize for the idiocy of our American government.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And, wow. Moore is doomed. The New Yorker reports on his being banned from a local shopping mall. It seems his open accosting in the halls of teenaged girls was too much for the shoppers.
The memories of elderly male mall managers and security cops will (alas) have more weight than that of women who were 14 at the time.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
You couldn't make it up. You really couldn't.

And, BTW, Brenda, please don't apologise for the idiocy of your 'government'. After all, on this side of the pond we have Boris Johnson....

How long, O Lord, how long......??

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And, wow. Moore is doomed.

There's many a slip, as the old saying goes, twixt cup and lip.

1. It's too late to take Moore off the ballot.
2. The sheer volume of unnamed sources in the New Yorker article will render it suspect in supporters' eyes, even if they read that publication. (I'd love to drop into Gadsden's public library and see if (A) they subscribe and (B) if this issue is on display.)
3. Much of Alabama lies well outside of Gadsden and well inside the Bible Belt.

The real issue emerges only if Moore gets elected. The Republicans are not well-situated for preventing Moore from taking his seat on the basis of child molestation (credible but not proven). They have spent a year cooperating with a President who's made a practice (and admitted this) of barging in to teen (read: underage) models' dressing rooms for the stated purpose of ogling them.

The cognitive discongruence is about at snapping point, I think, but not for Moore. It's the Republicans who are coming face to face with doom, either way. They're damned if they seat him and damned if they don't.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just as an aside, what on earth makes these hideous old men (or, in those days, hideous younger men) think they're God's gift to girls?

I include His Most Ugliness Gropo the Great in this category.

[Projectile]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Overweening ego and narcissism, mainly. In the case of Li'l Donny, he is on record denying he is old. (He is the oldest man ever elected president.) I suppose being in your mid-70s might not be considered old, if you were surrounded by 90 year olds, but who else would agree? He will believe he is young and hot until they shovel him under.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Overweening ego and narcissism, mainly. In the case of Li'l Donny, he is on record denying he is old. (He is the oldest man ever elected president.)

Second oldest. Reagan was older when re-elected in 1984. Trump is, however, the oldest man ever elected to a first term as president.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And, wow. Moore is doomed. The New Yorker reports on his being banned from a local shopping mall. It seems his open accosting in the halls of teenaged girls was too much for the shoppers.
The memories of elderly male mall managers and security cops will (alas) have more weight than that of women who were 14 at the time.

If this is true (and I think it is--I'm just trying to stick with the Ship's policy to say "alleged"), what a sleazoid creep. Even Mitch McConnell said he believed the women. I think what may bring him down, or turn people's opinions, is that inscription he left in one girl's yearbook. Yet he said he never knew her.

The only thing I question--and maybe this is a regional difference: why were young girls hanging out at the YMCA? I spent time at the YWCA. It was for girls. It's possible there might have been some young boys in a class, but no grown men around. They might have gotten as far as the lobby, if they had a child there.

Maybe girls hung out *around* the YMCA mentioned, as a way to be around boys?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I don't know about Gadsden, which has a population of roughly 36,000, but in my own city (around 45,000), there is no YWCA, only a YMCA. In my city, the Y serves everybody -- adults, kids, males, females, athletes, couch potatoes, everybody in between and/or outside of those particular categories. My state's biggest city, about a half-hour south of where I live, has a YWCA but no YMCA. I'm guessing the Y spreads its resources carefully in small towns.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, Ohher. [Smile]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Our local Y is completely omnisex. Indeed the only visible employees, other than the guy who cleans the men's locker room, are women.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Latest on Moore: yesterday I spend the day in sackcloth and ashes after a letter was released in support of Moore, signed by 53 evangelical pastors.

Today we learned that the original letter was written prior to the allegations of sexual abuse, then was edited after signing by Moore's wife to make it appear that these pastors were sticking with him despite the allegations. Quite a bit of outrage from those signers.

Relieved that my evangelical brethren are not quite as far gone as I thought. Regretful that the bar is so very very low.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Any way to charge his wife with something for doing that?

[ 15. November 2017, 04:58: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Latest on Moore: yesterday I spend the day in sackcloth and ashes after a letter was released in support of Moore, signed by 53 evangelical pastors.

Today we learned that the original letter was written prior to the allegations of sexual abuse, then was edited after signing by Moore's wife to make it appear that these pastors were sticking with him despite the allegations. Quite a bit of outrage from those signers.

Do you have a link for that? It might be useful in persuading some evangelical brethren about the willingness of their political masters to distort the truth.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Do you have a link for that? It might be useful in persuading some evangelical brethren about the willingness of their political masters to distort the truth.

link

I suspect they'll just move to the next stage though, from 'man of God' to 'flawed vessel'.

[fixed link]

[ 15. November 2017, 08:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Thanks. I fixed the link because it was breaking the scroll lock for some people.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, the Y in my area is for everybody, even though it is a YMCA. I have no idea if there is a separate YWCA anywhere.
Here a (free)
heartfelt cri de coeur proclaiming the death of Christianity. We got into bed with an orange toupeed Caesar, and got screwed.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Wow.

Preach it, Brother Miguel!

[Overused]

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Hmmm (some would say) -- Miguel de la Torre. Isn't that a Mexican name, eh?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O Heavens forfend!

A BAD HOMBRE dares to question the Holy Religion of Great America?

Is Outrage!

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
And now six Democrats have formally filed articles of impeachment against the dafttweep, See here

Probably won't go far in this Congress. I think it is going to be a campaign issue next year, though.

In the meantime, he sends a tweet about the shooting in California, but he uses the same tweet he sent to the church in Texas. Don't even change the name of the town.

I see Sean Hannity has given Moore less than 24 hours, now to come up with a credible explanation about what happened 40 years ago; otherwise, Hannity is pulling his support. Bannon is also said to be reconsidering supporting Moore.

I really feel sorry for those people who destroyed their Keurig coffeemakers after Keurig stopped advertising on Hannity's program after Hannity continued to support Moore. Don't they look foolish now?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Do you have a link for that? It might be useful in persuading some evangelical brethren about the willingness of their political masters to distort the truth.

link

I suspect they'll just move to the next stage though, from 'man of God' to 'flawed vessel'.

[fixed link]

What makes it much worse, IMHO, is that someone or other led Trump to a born-again decision--fairly early in the campaign process. I have no idea what it may mean to Trump. But, for people who supposedly believe in salvation, and that new Christians need to focus on the milk of the Gospel, not the meat...it's despicable to put a new Christian in the position of being their poster boy.

Blech.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What makes it much worse, IMHO, is that someone or other led Trump to a born-again decision--fairly early in the campaign process. I have no idea what it may mean to Trump.

I have heard no such suggestion, even among the most ardent right-wing evangelicals. Unlike W, he is "our guy" for reasons very much other than any sort of conversion experience.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
It was in the news in 2015. James Dobson originally claimed it, then walked it back somewhat.

The article is about the walk-back; but there are links at the beginning to the original coverage. And if you do a web search on "Trump conversion", you get a lot of hits.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It was in the news in 2015. James Dobson originally claimed it, then walked it back somewhat.

The article is about the walk-back; but there are links at the beginning to the original coverage. And if you do a web search on "Trump conversion", you get a lot of hits.

Yes, I remember that, which was my point-- Dobson originally claimed it (one of those "he seems like such a nice guy, not like those nasty liberals, so he must have had his come to Jesus moment") things, then had to walk it back, which leaves us with... no record of any discernible conversion experience. Then there was his infamous remark in 2015 about how he has never felt the need to ask God's forgiveness for anything.

So, again, no evidence of any conversion experience. So whatever the reasons that right-wing Christians thinks he's one of us, it's not cuz of that.

[ 15. November 2017, 19:50: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
cliffdweller--

Respectfully, you said you hadn't heard of anything like that. So I explained.

And I do remember about not asking God for forgiveness. From what I've seen, I suspect he doesn't get the concept at all.

[Angel]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
He name calls the dictator-with-nukes of North Korea in ways that got us sent to the hallway in grade 4. He believes Putin because he asked him repeatedly, except Putin says he didn't ask. Nice that China's Xi and Philippines Duerte fluffed him up, knowing that he likes peacocking. There has to be some cursing ritual available somewhere. Astrology, killed chicken entrails, anything.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
cliffdweller--

Respectfully, you said you hadn't heard of anything like that. So I explained.

Yes, I should have clarified that none had been sustained, and all pretense of such long ago dropped. Thanks for the corrective.

[ 15. November 2017, 20:12: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
He name calls the dictator-with-nukes of North Korea in ways that got us sent to the hallway in grade 4. He believes Putin because he asked him repeatedly, except Putin says he didn't ask. Nice that China's Xi and Philippines Duerte fluffed him up, knowing that he likes peacocking. There has to be some cursing ritual available somewhere. Astrology, killed chicken entrails, anything.

I have a British friend who is a noted pagan. I urged her to start a cursing service; if she set a Paypal account she'd get a lot of American custom.

More amusingly, here is a superb example of his juvenile taunting coming back to bite Lyin' Don in the hind end.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The trouble with curses is that they can often rebound onto the curser, as well as affecting the cursee.

However, cursing Gropo the Great, for instance, so that his hair falls out entirely would not affect me adversely. I gave up on hair a few years ago...

So, where did I put that grimoire? A nice one, too, bound up in human skin and all, got up regardless.

[Two face]

Yes, yes, I know - ITTWACW.

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
From what I've heard, magic is supposed to come back to you three fold. So if you curse someone...
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Would wishing him "Treason's Greetings" be a curse?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O no - entirely apposite, I would think...

[Snigger]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This will make you laugh, a (free) reference to the Roy Moore Senate race in Georgia. The election isn't until Dec. 12, so there should be vast fields for comedy between now and then. Saturday Night Live must be in bliss.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Killing me]

One can only hope and pray that the fall of the egregious Mr. Moore is spectacular and aweful.

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
From what I've heard, magic is supposed to come back to you three fold. So if you curse someone...

(looking around accusingly) Ok, 'fess up. Who was it who cursed Trump in the name of America???
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
[Hangs head in shame.]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is satire, and thus painful.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed....but perhaps it highlights just how low Great America has sunk (I know, I know - other countries are just as bad).

That, I guess, is the purpose of satire, however painful.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The really -original- ways to resist are particularly admirable. These people are crowd-funding a ploy to endlessly delay the wall on the Mexico border. Or I should say they -were- crowd-funding it, since it's sold out. I only heard about it yesterday, too, so they have not lacked for enthusiastic participants.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Excellent stuff, Brenda! Great link. Highly enjoyed it. Keep up the good work, youse all! [Yipee]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Meanwhile, this Spitting Image puppet version of The Great American Toilet (see Brenda's link) has been made.

Can't see much difference between the puppet and the real Gropo.... [Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Anyone going to hunt elephants?

Maybe you can pay for it with your HUUUUUUGE tax cuts. That are really tax cuts for corporations. Who the recent papers leak showed corporations hide their funds offshore so they don't pay tax.

On the tax "reform", why do some states give a rebate on state taxes paid (which will go also). I am sure it helps, but it seems odd to me (we have something similar with private health insurance). Why not reduce state tax? Sorry...I may be being simplistic.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I really feel sorry for those people who destroyed their Keurig coffeemakers after Keurig stopped advertising on Hannity's program after Hannity continued to support Moore. Don't they look foolish now?

They seriously did that?? Sound like Rush Limbaugh's "Ditto-heads".
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re elephants:

Heard on NPR today about a woman working to save African elephants. She's a former US intelligence officer, special ops, and she's using her skills. (Tracking poachers, I think.) Her family is there with her.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Interesting. Will try and find that.
Thanks GK!

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I really feel sorry for those people who destroyed their Keurig coffeemakers after Keurig stopped advertising on Hannity's program after Hannity continued to support Moore. Don't they look foolish now?

They seriously did that?? Sound like Rush Limbaugh's "Ditto-heads".
Behold! (starts around 3:50)

[ 18. November 2017, 06:17: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

Thanks for the link about Keurig. I'm looking for a link for the elephant story I mentioned. I had my local NPR station on all day, and they have some shows from other sources. So it may take a little time to find. Will post when I do.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re elephants:

Ok, I found it! [Smile] NPR runs the audio of the "PBS Newshour", and that's where I heard it, and that made it a little tricky to track down.

"How lessons from fighting terrorism are saving elephants in Kenya" (PBS).

Choice of transcript, audio, and video.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks so much!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Writers always hope for their books to be burned. You have to buy them in order to burn them! Once I even sent one of my novels to Jerry Falwell, hoping to be denounced as a Tool of Satan. Alas...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
That man always disappoints
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Reports are now saying because of the public outcry from both the right and the left, Trump has put the idea of importing Elephant Hunt trophies on hold pending further review.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-faced-public-and-private-pressure-to-halt-elephant-hunting-trophy-imports/2017/ 11/18/ba4a43fc-cc7d-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.d20daed6b845
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
From "Newsweek":

"Who Will Be The Next President? Here Are 6 Women Who Haven't Been Accused Of Rape."

Gotta love the title! [Smile]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the LA Times, a denunciation of the current administrations pretentions to Christianity.
And, from the Post, the prosperity gospel gal who claims to have led Lyin' Don to Christ.
After this presidency, Christianity will indeed be a minority religion. We deserve to be persecuted. Nobody will want to be a Christian any more, and who could blame them?

[ 19. November 2017, 17:35: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Brenda, your second link leads to the same article as the first one.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Brenda, your second link seems to be the same as your first.

Clearly, Satan is at work, preventing me from knowing the truth about Great Christiamerica...

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Wow! Simultaneous posts!

Ohher and I are obviously both Hellbound Hereticks, or something...

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Spooky.

May be this one?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, Ian - I think you're right.

Be warned - it's a loooong article, but worth reading. The best bits, however, are the comments.

As regards Gropo, White-Cain, and God:

[Projectile]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, that was it -- sorry, my computer was being pouty. At least there's a growing awareness and clamor in the religious community, about how the faith is being zombified -- dead and shambling and not at all alive. We're good at rising from the dead, maybe we can do it again.

OTOH, there's this, on the Post front page: the Museum of the Bible's mammon-like gift shop. Was it on SoF, where somebody said that it's a law that all museums tours have to begin and end in the gift shop?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
One woman said a $5,000 necklace “made for a fantastic Christmas gift.” Another guest whispered to his wife, “$25 for a T-shirt?”
I fear I'm more like the man.

Thanks for these articles, Brenda.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Not entirely relevant, but so funny and oh! so sad. A heartfelt number from SNL.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
"Who Will Be The Next President? Here Are 6 Women Who Haven't Been Accused Of Rape."


Now, I can see a race between Elizabeth Warren and Susan Collins
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Trump tweets he should've left basketball players in jail.

What a man!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Trump tweets he should've left basketball players in jail.

What a man!

He needs grovelling gratitude, any less will not be tolerated.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Well, one does have to wonder what they were thinking (if they were thinking at all) when they decided to shoplift in communist China, of all places. What did they expect would happen? At least it wasn't Singapore, where they probably would have been flogged.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Well, one does have to wonder what they were thinking (if they were thinking at all) when they decided to shoplift in communist China, of all places. What did they expect would happen? At least it wasn't Singapore, where they probably would have been flogged.

I actually think Trump did too much by getting them out. We've all seen Midnight Express. What the hell made these basketball players so special?

One explanation, suggested to me today by a student, is that China is a country where the president can actually get people out of jail with the stroke of pen, whereas other governments don't grant the head honcho that degree of power, so Trump just did this in China because he could. One assumes the Xi is expecting something in return.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The idiocy of the very young is always with us and does not alter. The idiocy of Lyin' Don, doing nothing but then claiming the credit, and then whining when his lie is unmasked, is unbelievable. If you saw it on a movie screen you would post a nasty review onto IMDB; if you read it on the page you'd be unpleasant on Goodreads. I can't escape the feeling that we're trapped in an online-TV show written from week to week by desperate scripters on drugs.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
There is indeed an air of creepy unreality about the state of Greatagain Christiamerica.

It's not confined to that side of the pond - we have Boris Johnson as our Foreign Secretary, and you really couldn't make him up, and expect people to believe you...

Lord have mercy on us all.

IJ
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The idiocy of the very young is always with us and does not alter. The idiocy of Lyin' Don, doing nothing but then claiming the credit, and then whining when his lie is unmasked, is unbelievable. If you saw it on a movie screen you would post a nasty review onto IMDB; if you read it on the page you'd be unpleasant on Goodreads. I can't escape the feeling that we're trapped in an online-TV show written from week to week by desperate scripters on drugs.

Has it been confirmed that Trump had nothing to do with their release? That would make sense, as it seemed kind of odd that he would just randomly ask Xi about these basketball players. But I haven't seen anything either way about the veracity of it.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If you come late to this click, it's the comic for today, November 20.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I find it hard to believe that The Great Pumpkin had anything to do with these idiot shoplifters.

Two of them are brown, and therefore beneath The Great Pumpkin's radar, surely?

IJ
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
That LA times article which Brenda linked to is very interesting:

quote:
Millions of Christians across the world take the teachings of Jesus seriously, of course. They work in soup kitchens, homeless shelters and orphanages. They help people overcome addiction. They support the most vulnerable, advocate nonviolence and compassion, fight for human rights. They care about the pain climate change will cause. Unfortunately, they are not the Christians running this country...

...While these men and women profess love for Jesus, they create suffering and misery in his name.

Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College and the author of “Living the Secular Life.”

It's encouraging to see a careful criticism of 'Christian' hypocrisy in its own terms which doesn't set out to ridicule all believers, from such an author.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The idiocy of the very young is always with us and does not alter. The idiocy of Lyin' Don, doing nothing but then claiming the credit, and then whining when his lie is unmasked, is unbelievable. If you saw it on a movie screen you would post a nasty review onto IMDB; if you read it on the page you'd be unpleasant on Goodreads. I can't escape the feeling that we're trapped in an online-TV show written from week to week by desperate scripters on drugs.

Has it been confirmed that Trump had nothing to do with their release? That would make sense, as it seemed kind of odd that he would just randomly ask Xi about these basketball players. But I haven't seen anything either way about the veracity of it.
This seems to be
a cogent summary of the entire tempest in a teapot.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Sometimes I despair.
Esquire magazine quotes CNN:
Trump voter panelist: "If Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, 'Hold on a second. I need to check with the President if it's true.'"
You can't believe it? Let's go to the videotape.
[brick wall]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It does appear, Brenda, that at least some of your compatriots have indeed gone Bonkers.

[Paranoid]

Kyrie, eleison.

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Brenda's link:

Gaaaa.
[brick wall]

I wonder if a) the person quoted identifies as Christian; b) is a practicing Christian; and c) understands that Jesus was resurrected, and isn't just hanging around on the cross?

It may be as simple as "Trump's here right now; where's Jesus?"

The last paragraph is apt, though:

quote:
He's the People's President, after all. But Charlie Manson's death today ought to be a reminder that cults have consequences.
Perhaps we could persuade T to write out an adaptation of Mugabe's letter?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Brenda's link:

Gaaaa.
[brick wall]

I wonder if a) the person quoted identifies as Christian; b) is a practicing Christian; and c) understands that Jesus was resurrected, and isn't just hanging around on the cross?

I'm sure they're the kind worrying about getting the Christ back into CHRISTmas and forgot all about the Christ in CHRISTian.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This, however, is encouraging: churches notice an uptick in membership since a year ago. Young people, women, people who want to be engaged. It's from the Post.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
what about remembering the MASS in ChristMASS?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Note to Mr. T.

When honoring the Wind Talkers of WWII, you do not make any reference to a Pocahontas in the US Congress.

The Navajo Nation is pretty incensed about this.

Just goes to prove how racist you are.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Note to Mr. T.

When honoring the Wind Talkers of WWII, you do not make any reference to a Pocahontas in the US Congress.

The Navajo Nation is pretty incensed about this.

Just goes to prove how racist you are.

Given how often he said he didn't "have time to be politically correct" during the campaign, the fact that Trump uses racial slurs should be no surprise to anyone who was paying attention.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
While standing under a portrait of Andrew Jackson, genocidal maniac supreme who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. This can't have been an accident.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
On the other hand, donald fart has been referred to as Chief S*itting Bull, and nobody seemed to find anything wrong with that.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
On the other hand, donald fart has been referred to as Chief S*itting Bull, and nobody seemed to find anything wrong with that.

I have never heard that. Do you know nobody objected, or do you just mean nobody who crossed your feed?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Native Americans regret not building wall.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Note to Mr. T.

When honoring the Wind Talkers of WWII, you do not make any reference to a Pocahontas in the US Congress.

The Navajo Nation is pretty incensed about this.

Just goes to prove how racist you are.

Good freaking grief.

I sometimes wonder if his German father and grandfather were sympathetic to that guy with the funny mustache. (Not that all Germans were/are.) That would explain some of T's comments and attitudes.

I read CNN's longish article about this incident. There's a possibly cryptic comment from Russell Begaye, the president of the Navajo Nation:

quote:
"As Native Americans, we are proud people who have taken care of this land long before there was the United States of America and we will continue to fight for this Nation."
Does that translate to continuing to fight as part of the US armed forces; fighting for the Navajo nation; or fighting to get the land back?

Or all of the above?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I sometimes wonder if his German father and grandfather were sympathetic to that guy with the funny mustache. (Not that all Germans were/are.) That would explain some of T's comments and attitudes.

From the tantalizingly incomplete evidence, Fred Trump seems to have been more sympathetic to the guys in the white sheets than "that guy with the funny mustache".
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
While standing under a portrait of Andrew Jackson, genocidal maniac supreme who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. This can't have been an accident.

To say nothing of taking focus off of, say, the American veterans we're supposed to be honoring, to exercise a personal feud.

I feel so sorry that these heroes were treated so shabbily. They deserved much better.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

I read CNN's longish article about this incident.[/URL] There's a possibly cryptic comment from Russell Begaye, the president of the Navajo Nation:

quote:
"As Native Americans, we are proud people who have taken care of this land long before there was the United States of America and we will continue to fight for this Nation."
Does that translate to continuing to fight as part of the US armed forces; fighting for the Navajo nation; or fighting to get the land back?

Or all of the above?

Given the mess POTUS' pick for interior sec. stands to make of the nat'l parks, the stripping of the EPA, and a 100 other ways he's squandering our children's inheritance, I'd be willing to hand the whole thing back to them (do it quickly while it's still worth taking) and take my chances that they'll have the incredible grace to let some of us latecomers stick around to help run the joint.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
cliffdweller--

Yes, re giving the land back and hoping to stay. Wouldn't that be one for the history books!
[Cool]
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
While standing under a portrait of Andrew Jackson, genocidal maniac supreme who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. This can't have been an accident.

To say nothing of taking focus off of, say, the American veterans we're supposed to be honoring, to exercise a personal feud.

I feel so sorry that these heroes were treated so shabbily. They deserved much better.

The Navajo vets were beyond gracious considering Trumps using a racial slur in furtherance of a feud when they were there to be honoured for their service. The man is as tone deaf and self centered as one can be.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I sometimes wonder if his German father and grandfather were sympathetic to that guy with the funny mustache. (Not that all Germans were/are.) That would explain some of T's comments and attitudes.

From the tantalizingly incomplete evidence, Fred Trump seems to have been more sympathetic to the guys in the white sheets than "that guy with the funny mustache".
Who? Charlie Chaplin?

smart-arse exits stage right, giggling.

[ 28. November 2017, 05:47: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
[Razz]

Chaplin dressed better.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Scathing indictment of the day, this from Richard Cohen at the Post.
Money quote:
"Trump has made us a meaner, smaller people. He tweets the language of the schoolyard. It is full of resentment and bravado. He asks nothing of us. Instead, he validates meanness, opportunism and prejudice. At the moment, for instance, he asks us to disbelieve the many women who have accused Roy Moore of sexual harassment or what amounts to pedophilia. It is a squalid effort — just plain dirty.

There are no metrics to gauge this sort of thing. A moral gloom, as thick as the London fog in Churchill’s time, has settled over America. It cannot be measured. Only names can be counted — the people who supported Trump and now the ones who say nothing. Moral principle has been replaced by political cowardice. This is our darkest hour."

To which I have to respond, only 330 days to the 2018 election!
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
On the other hand, donald fart has been referred to as Chief S*itting Bull, and nobody seemed to find anything wrong with that.

I have never heard that. Do you know nobody objected, or do you just mean nobody who crossed your feed?
I think it must have been in a comments section following an article in the Washington Post. To be fair, those comments have a lifespan of only a few minutes before they are buried, so I agree that it was a stretched assumption to say 'nobody'.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And it is a truism, that you should not read the comments. Only erodes the stomach lining.
This is cogent, and free: Lyin' Don's loose relationship with reality.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Lord, have mercy.

I do really, really hope that there is a sufficiently unpleasant circle in Hell for the Moores, Trumps, and all others who prey on women and/or children.

And it will be really real to them.

Bastards.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Point:

quote:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Meeting with “Chuck and Nancy” today about keeping government open and working. Problem is they want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes. I don’t see a deal!

Counterpoint:

quote:
Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer released the following statement after President Trump tweeted about the bipartisan meeting today at the White House with Congressional leaders:

“Given that the President doesn’t see a deal between Democrats and the White House, we believe the best path forward is to continue negotiating with our Republican counterparts in Congress instead. Rather than going to the White House for a show meeting that won’t result in an agreement, we’ve asked Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan to meet this afternoon. We don’t have any time to waste in addressing the issues that confront us, so we’re going to continue to negotiate with Republican leaders who may be interested in reaching a bipartisan agreement.

“If the President, who already said earlier this year that ‘our country needs a good shutdown,’ isn’t interested in addressing the difficult year end agenda, we’ll work with those Republicans who are, as we did in April. We look forward to continuing to work in good faith, as we have been for the last month, with our Republican colleagues in Congress to do just that.”


 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
John Pavlovitz pounds the pulpit and preaches a superb come-to-Jesus sermon for evangelical Crooked Don supporters.

And on a lighter note, an analysis of the First Lady and her Christmas decorations. Elswhere on the web there has been some great commentary, about that icy dark hallway with a gleam of light at the end. The metaphor cries out to be made, does it not?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Seriously creepy, that hallway.... [Paranoid]

'Godless and bristling' sums it up.

No sign of Christ .........

Poor woman - 'Melancholia' suits her better as a name.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I’ve never seen such a false, forced smile [Frown]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And you should know that those photographs/vids are the ones released by the White House.
There's not only a 'free Melania' meme running around, but a not-entirely-joking rumor that she is occasionally replaced by a body double. All of this generated, of course by her passive affect and voicelessness.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just to lighten the mood, Barack Obama at the lighting of the National Christmas Tree.

Not a bad little homily for the Feast of Christ the King...

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just to lighten the mood, Barack Obama at the lighting of the National Christmas Tree.

Not a bad little homily for the Feast of Christ the King...

IJ

That was wonderful -- thank you for posting it.
[Tear]

(That was about three weeks after our "election" of Trump.)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I miss him so much.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I can't find an image on-line, but a friend sent me a realistic-looking mock-up of a TIME Magazine Person of the Year cover -- with Robert Mueller!
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Lord, have mercy.

I do really, really hope that there is a sufficiently unpleasant circle in Hell for the Moores, Trumps, and all others who prey on women and/or children.

And it will be really real to them.

Bastards.

IJ

Ivanka said as much (in a tweet, IIRC). She didn't mention her father. But he is not amused. Possibly because she's publicly going against his support of Moore.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Daddy himself has been accused of behaviour around minors that is creepy at best (walking into the changing room at beauty pageants).
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Kyrie Eleison indeed... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-britain-first-retweet-muslim-migrants-jayda-fransen -deputy-leader-a8082001.html

He might as well go full KKK.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Truly, America (and the world) is in deep brown cacky...

Is there no way some heroic geek can disable The Gruesome Gropo's Twitter account? Permanently?

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Is there no way some heroic geek can disable The Gruesome Gropo's Twitter account? Permanently?

IJ

And to think that just less than nine years ago, the National Security Agency was concerned about President Obama keeping his Blackberry.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Quite.

But aren't President Pottyarse's tweets etc. subject to law in any way? Are they preserved for ever, to be used as evidence eventually?

Anyway, his alignment with 'Britain First' shows him in his true colours, as Karl has said. When will he declare publicly his membership of KKK?

IJ
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
It breaks Twitter's terms of service - but Twitter does nothing about it. Presumably because of all the eyeballs it brings to their advertising.

I suppose we knew already that Trump is a racist and white supremacist, but seeing him retweet actual known British fascists from a group implicated in poisoning the mind of the man who murdered Jo Cox is like watching someone run up a swastika flag on the Whitehouse.

[ 29. November 2017, 13:17: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, I think we knew already what an evil, racist bastard The Gruesome Grabber is. This latest infamy just confirms it even further, if that's possible.

Any sign of a response yet from the so-called government of Ukland? Or our esteemed Foreign Secretary, BoJo the Thatched?

No?

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Anyway, his alignment with 'Britain First' shows him in his true colours, as Karl has said. When will he declare publicly his membership of KKK?

The Klan is a secret society ("the Invisible Empire"), so aside from designated spokesracists Klansmen don't publicly declare their membership. (Hence the hoods.) That noted, about three months ago Trump described Nazis and Klansmen as "very fine people".
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Fair point - but I think The Fuckwit-of-Fuckwit's remarks anent Nazis etc. say it all.

A Hellish thought - does he wear the hood, when alone in the White House with Melancholia?

I'll get me cloak...

IJ
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:


Any sign of a response yet from the so-called government of Ukland? Or our esteemed Foreign Secretary, BoJo the Thatched?

No?

IJ

Well you see as a consequence of 'taking back control' we now cower in the face of the fascists we're desperately cosying up to for trade deals. And sadly the people most responsible for this are often the very people who squawk loudest about whether we've all been wearing our poppies.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Downing Street's reaction to Gropo's latest outpouring of shite.

It's 'wrong'.
[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
By a 'spokesperson' in a press briefing - May hasn't got the backbone to go on camera and condemn Trump herself, but she was happy to be filmed holding his hand and sucking up to him in Washington for all the world to see. And according to Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC plans for a state visit are still in place.

[ 29. November 2017, 15:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Projectile]

A plague on May and Gropo both.

Also on 'Britain First', of course.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
BTW, the BBC shares with us this image of The Pottyarse
which somehow depicts his general awfulness.

YMMV.

(This photo may be NSFW, depending on whether you are eating or drinking when you view it).

[Projectile]

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Lord, have mercy.

I do really, really hope that there is a sufficiently unpleasant circle in Hell for the Moores, Trumps, and all others who prey on women and/or children.

And it will be really real to them.

Bastards.

IJ

Ivanka said as much (in a tweet, IIRC). She didn't mention her father. But he is not amused. Possibly because she's publicly going against his support of Moore.
This is a common pattern from Ivanka, and to a lesser degree, Melania. We often get these sorts of counter-messages, but never ever a direct challenge. They will each say/tweet things completely contrary to the actions or words of Donald, but without ever expressly acknowledging that. And always with such a bland, expressionless countenance that gives away nothing (unlike the more transparently unfiltered words/expressions of the Trump boys).

It's a curious pattern. One wonders if they are hostages to their own self-interest, able only in these curiously indirect ways to signal their disagreement? Or are they simply clueless/isolated enough to realize how off-point their message sounds? Ivanka's recent book seems to suggest the latter, but even that may be the muted cry for help of the former.

I have zero interest in a future Donald bio. But if any biographer is ever able to crack Ivanka's shell enough to get at that question, I would find it fascinating.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Ivanka said as much (in a tweet, IIRC). She didn't mention her father. But he is not amused. Possibly because she's publicly going against his support of Moore.

This is a common pattern from Ivanka, and to a lesser degree, Melania. We often get these sorts of counter-messages, but never ever a direct challenge. They will each say/tweet things completely contrary to the actions or words of Donald, but without ever expressly acknowledging that. And always with such a bland, expressionless countenance that gives away nothing (unlike the more transparently unfiltered words/expressions of the Trump boys).

It's a curious pattern. One wonders if they are hostages to their own self-interest, able only in these curiously indirect ways to signal their disagreement? Or are they simply clueless/isolated enough to realize how off-point their message sounds? Ivanka's recent book seems to suggest the latter, but even that may be the muted cry for help of the former.

This has long been the designated role for female family members of Republican holding elected office; providing some soft-focus disagreements with their husband's (or, more rarely, father's) more crazy or cruel public positions. Thus people arguing that George Bush (senior) can't be really that anti-woman because Barbara Bush (his wife, not his granddaughter) is somewhat pro-choice. In other words, it's a fairly transparent exercise in public relations that doesn't affect actual policy decisions at all.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, the women can say what they want (or, in Melania's case, say what she is told to say) and the menfolks do what they want. Do not pity Ivanka; she's busily feathering her nest as fast as she can. When Dad goes to jail or into a rest home she will have all the money -- they're gutting tax laws so that she can inherit.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Brenda said:
quote:
When Dad goes to jail or into a rest home...
O may that day be not long delayed (though spare a thought for the rest home staff).

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, forgot to add Richard Cohen in the Post pointing out Crooked Don's increasing nuttiness. This is one of two pieces in today's paper arguing that he's rapidly spinning off the merry-go-round.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Should be any day now.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, his head will probably implode, releasing tons of artificial hair into the atmosphere, adding to the Chinese myth about global warming.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Or do I mean explode?

Whatever...

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
It's empty, so implosion is probably what would happen.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That was my first thought. Either way, the sooner this false, evil, malevolent, Groping Git goes, the better for all of us.

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
By a 'spokesperson' in a press briefing - May hasn't got the backbone to go on camera and condemn Trump herself, but she was happy to be filmed holding his hand and sucking up to him in Washington for all the world to see. And according to Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC plans for a state visit are still in place.

Um...we had a clip on the news here: middle-aged woman, outside a building (maybe 10 Downing St.?), who was asked her opinion. She said "the president shouldn't have done this". (Close to a quote.)

I thought that was Ms. May.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The Golden Toad knows that the jig may be up over Russia. So he wants an image to distract people. It's his naked girl covered in napalm, if it's not his 5 marines raising a flag, except it's all pseudo-Muslims invented by a British Hitler maidchen. We is going to need pills.

[ 30. November 2017, 00:12: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
BBC breaking news is that Trump has tweeted at our prime minister telling her to focus on radical Islamic terrorism in the UK.

So the special relationship is going well ...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
A Sioux leader has spoken out about T's behavior with the Code Talkers (Yahoo).

His statement ends with:

quote:
I have one for him, leave the office you bought and take your swamp things with you.
[Overused]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Ann Coulter just insulted the intelligence of every person listening to the flagship morning radio programme.

That sound you can hear across the atlantic was the sound of millions of facepalms.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Still. Here's one positive: when the fascists stand up, they look ridiculous.

Point and laugh, point and laugh at the silly woman talking shite. She doesn't like it.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Not sure I want to know what she said. Scrub that, I'm sure I don't.

The man cannot admit he got something wrong, can he?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I genuinely don't think he can tell the difference between truth and lies. Yesterday he was trying to pretend that he hadn't said the infamous things he said about women.

Even though he'd admitted them and apologised for them.

And there are a pack of neo-fascists who are willing to amplify his agenda in the media. The respectable face of fascism.

It'll be fun when he comes to visit. I suspect the whole country will take the day off to pull moonies as his presidential motorcade passes.

[ 30. November 2017, 07:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The me me me me ME ME ME president is suddenly tweeting ‘Don’t focus on me’ - and we all know why.

His day of reckoning is at hand.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
There’s nothing new about El Presidente denying saying things in the face of clear video evidence to the contrary. He’s been doing it for ages.

It’s his standard modus operandi and the classic tactic of the gaslighting abuser. What do you believe? What (you think) you saw or what I tell you? What’s terrifying about Trump is that he is trying to gaslight the whole world.

(PS please please please moon him. It would be so delightfully English of you.)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think the best advice on Trump is:
quote:
Don't listen to what he says, but watch what he does.
(Can't find a reliable source for who said it first about him, but I think it's spot on).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(Can't find a reliable source for who said it first about him, but I think it's spot on).

It seems to have many different origins. When used about Trump, it seems some think it originated with McMaster.

But it's been a phrase bouncing around the US political classes for a long time. It was said about Obama in 2009 and 2010... and so on.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It's all the more apposite for Trump in that as a con artist, the function of his communication is to serve as a distraction from his actions and those of the legislative branch that helped put him there.

[ 30. November 2017, 09:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's all the more apposite for Trump in that as a con artist, the function of his communication is to serve as a distraction from his actions and those of the legislative branch that helped put him there.

Yep. It’s a dead cat strategy.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

(PS please please please moon him. It would be so delightfully English of you.)

Well many people went out on the streets and rang bells when Thatcher died. I hope they moon him en masse too.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Trump is a knave and a rogue: that much was clear long before he became POTUS and there was clear evidence of his lying and bullying here in the UK if our politicians had only chosen to look at his behaviour in Scotland.

The decision to announce an invitation to make a state visit so soon after he gained the presidency was not just unseemly in its haste, it was plain wrong. Quite apart from his behaviour now, a state visit is not some cheap smartie to be handed over to pacify a bolshy child, it is recognition not only of the state represented by the person making the visit but also of the actions of the person representing that state. You'd have thought that HMG might have learned from previous "tainted" recipients of state visits - I'm thinking Ceausescu, Mugabe, Hirohito, Putin - to be more circumspect.

IMO while the US have as head of state someone who tweets incontinently and shows little, if any, grasp of standard politesse there should be no state visit.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
That was my first thought. Either way, the sooner this false, evil, malevolent, Groping Git goes, the better for all of us.

IJ

Only 7 years and 2 months to go. Unless he does an FDR of course.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
You mean - die suddenly?

Well, that might happen, though not necessarily due to the same cause.

A nice long spell in jail would be a more satisfactory solution, I think.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No no. Stay strong. It is 330 days or so, to the 2018 election. We need to flip the House. Then, many many hearings can be held. Tax hearings. Impeachment hearings. Discussions on shameless malfeasance and the egregious enriching of relatives. He's not going to last to 2020 and that's how we'll do it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Pray God you are right.

Meanwhile, our Esteemed and Beloved Great Leader has pronounced her Verdict on Gropo's latest Infamy as reported by the BBC.

Looks like we may be stuck with a state visit after all, but with any luck, the route of the motorcade will either be completely empty, or lined with bare bums and pink pussyhats...in which case the Grabber-in-Chief will probably brag that it's the bigliest display of bums he's seen since he last gatecrashed a changing-room.

[Devil]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There are knitters in Britain, otherwise I would offer to knit pussyhats for you. Get going on the needlework now. Hats for women, men can moon him, and the kiddies can hold protest signs. Oh, and I count upon many a hilarious meme and YouTube video. He can't stand to be laughed at, remember that -- like the devil.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There are knitters in Britain, otherwise I would offer to knit pussyhats for you. Get going on the needlework now. Hats for women, men can moon him, and the kiddies can hold protest signs. Oh, and I count upon many a hilarious meme and YouTube video. He can't stand to be laughed at, remember that -- like the devil.

I think we'll have to find our own cultural ways to protest. I love the idea of knitting-as-protest, I'm not sure whether the things that worked in the US would work here.

But you are right, it would take a bit of organising.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
We’re counting on you cheesy – get going with organising that bare-bottomed protest now. Mostly pasty white English ones, I suppose, although if you can round up some ethnic minority bottoms, that would quite appropriate.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
We’re counting on you cheesy – get going with organising that bare-bottomed protest now. Mostly pasty white English ones, I suppose, although if you can round up some ethnic minority bottoms, that would quite appropriate.

I strongly suspect that if he came anywhere around here, there wouldn't need to be any organising of a mooning protest. I think that'd happen.

Elsewhere in the UK, I'm not so sure - but if it started in one place it would quickly spread as a thing.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
But, to continue that thought, there would need to be some organising of other kinds of protest which didn't involve pissed-up young men.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
We’re counting on you cheesy – get going with organising that bare-bottomed protest now. Mostly pasty white English ones, I suppose, although if you can round up some ethnic minority bottoms, that would quite appropriate.

I strongly suspect that if he came anywhere around here, there wouldn't need to be any organising of a mooning protest. I think that'd happen.

Elsewhere in the UK, I'm not so sure - but if it started in one place it would quickly spread as a thing.

We could simply turn our back on him. No need to disrobe on a potentially cold, damp day, but that would hurt an attention whore just as much.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Of course, it would also be relatively simple to close down the transportation system in this country so he couldn't get anywhere.

Truckers closed everything down for the fuel protests, I think a few strategic organised actions would make a "visit" impossible.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You don't want to do that. Because then Crooked Don would just say that all his millions and millions of British supporters were merely unable to attend and cheer him, due to a few malcontents who bollixed up the transportation. Remember, he believes he won the popular vote; only the millions of illegal voters somehow denied it to him (in a way that doesn't quite stand up to logic, because if there were that many voting for Hillary why didn't she win? But logic has no place here.) Don't give him a chance to create his own egotistical reality. He needs to -see- the disapprobation, ideally while sitting in the limo or horse-drawn carriage and unable to escape.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, it would also be relatively simple to close down the transportation system in this country so he couldn't get anywhere.

Truckers closed everything down for the fuel protests, I think a few strategic organised actions would make a "visit" impossible.

OH yes! I would sign up to sit down on the Mall or anywhere else on route. Not bare arsed tho'.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Look for Impeachment Marches on 20 January 2018.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The second annual Women's March is January 20, 2018.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Wow! I didn't realise his days are so numbered!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have many of my old protest signs from last year. Alas, my knee went out in the spring and I may no longer be able to march for nine hours straight. However, d.v., I'll be there.
Also, I live on the Metro line. Anyone who plans to come to Washington to protest and needs crash space, pm me.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So this makes four indictments (so far) of members of the Trump campaign or administration.

quote:
Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn will plead guilty Friday to "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to the FBI about conversations with Russia's ambassador, according to court documents.
Flynn's guilty plea will also mark the first conviction of a member of the Trump administration. (Papadopoulos, who plead guilty earlier, was involved with the campaign but not a member of the administration.)

[ 01. December 2017, 15:02: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So this makes four indictments (so far) of members of the Trump campaign or administration.

quote:
Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn will plead guilty Friday to "willfully and knowingly" making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to the FBI about conversations with Russia's ambassador, according to court documents.
Flynn's guilty plea will also mark the first conviction of a member of the Trump administration. (Papadopoulos, who plead guilty earlier, was involved with the campaign but not a member of the administration.)
It also appears to be an indicator that he has turned states evidence. Which means someone higher up is in Mueller's sights.

Now the race is on-- can Congress pass the one thing they're really after-- the horrific tax bill-- before the whole house of cards comes down? I'm convinced the GOP could care less about Trump and his insane shenanigans, he is a useful idiot distracting the country from the real agenda-- tax reform which will complete the transformation of America back to a mideval fiefdom where the serfs are dependent upon their overlords for their very lives.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Getting to be squeaky bum time on the tax bill, from what I understand. Corker, Collins, and Flake may be able to derail it. I’m not overly optimistic, but what a day it would prove to be...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
James Comey
@Comey
“But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24 https://www.instagram.com/p/BcKtEUUg4Qa/

James Comey apparently throws excellent shade.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Reading reports that Flake is a yes, based on some weak promise that he can get a seat at the table on DACA reform.

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Getting to be squeaky bum time on the tax bill, from what I understand. Corker, Collins, and Flake may be able to derail it. I’m not overly optimistic, but what a day it would prove to be...

Flake has flaked out, as has McCain.
[Mad]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Collins too.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Flynn. Kushner. Any day now.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Flynn. Kushner. Any day now.

So Trump may actually be keeping a campaign promise -- the swamp might be getting drained.

[Snigger]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Wonder what's going through Jared's head? His dad did prison time for "witness tampering, illegal campaign contributions and tax evasion" (Bloomberg).

Lots there about Jared's dealings, too.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Flynn. Kushner. Any day now.

So Trump may actually be keeping a campaign promise -- the swamp might be getting drained.

[Snigger]

After T's nastiness while meeting with the Navajo code talkers, a Sioux leader said something to the effect of "Mr. Trump, leave the office that you bought, take your swamp things, and go home".
[Smile]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
So Trump may actually be keeping a campaign promise -- the swamp might be getting drained.

[Snigger]

Totally illiterated.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
come in spinner.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Are they seriously putting out a bill with handwritten amendments? This gets more and more strange. Seems they are in a rush. I wonder why?

(/rhetorical q)
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Are they seriously putting out a bill with handwritten amendments?

Probably using crayons. And fighting over who gets which color.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
And now apparently he believes that whether you're guilty of homicide should depend on your immigration status; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42190455
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Karl--

Oh, yes, T has been milking that situation for some time. Fits with his "dangerous immigrants!" narrative.

That was such a strange murder case. The gun belonged to a law-enforcement ranger. It was unsecured in his unattended parked car. Someone stole it. The ranger was never disciplined for it--he was promoted several months later. The defense's story is basically that Mr. Zarate was sitting along the Embarcadero; found the gun, wrapped under his seat; not knowing what it was, he started to unwrap it; and it went off. The bullet ricocheted quite a distance, and hit Ms. Steinle. The jury evidently agreed. However, he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun. Hardly fair, I think, if he really had just then found the gun and picked it up.

He didn't have a violent history. He is a felon, due to some non-violent drug offenses. The only sane reason to say it was due to immigration is that he'd been deported several times.

Here's a good article from KQED, one of our local public broadcasting stations, from October. It mentions that the Feds messed up in handling him, and that's why he was in SF.

And here are links to relevant articles from SF Gate, a division of the SF Chronicle.

Looks like a whole bunch of people are up in arms that he was mostly acquitted. Viral demand to boycott SF, etc.

FYI.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I love how people outside a courtroom always know better than those who were inside.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

Um, is that directed at me?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
For no other reason than David Byrne could be the president of anything. trumpy sings Talking Heads. Rather brilliantly done.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Forget everything else that's going on.

Latest from the BBC re the USA and North Korea.

What price Armageddon, before the New Year?

With Gropolini The Gruesome in charge...... [Help]

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
simontoad--

Um, is that directed at me?

No no. Just all those people everywhere who always reckon the Jury got it wrong.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

Oh, THEM! [Biased]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Jerusalem.

Why has the plan to affirm it as the capital even got out there? I do not believe they can be serious. Are they? Or is putting it out a smoke-screen for somethimg else?

Part of me thinks countries can choose any damn capital they want; we built one. But another part of me says that particukar patch of land has a teeny bit of history around it...that continues to this day.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
1. Attempt to fulfil a campaign promise to pander to his con-evo base at no perceptible economic cost to the latter.

2. Deflection from Mueller probe.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Jerusalem:

AIUI, Palestinians consider it their capital, too, and I think they've specified (sharing?) that in some list of wants/demands.

So throwing the weight of the US toward the Israeli claim would cut the Palestinians, too.

It doesn't necessarily have to be to placate Christian con-evos. Could also be Jews. Jared Kushner, Ivanka's husband, in Jewish, and Ivanka converted. T is trying the usual presidential project of "oh, let's fix that Israel and Palestine mess--**I** can do it". And Jared went over there, some time back, to try. Not sure if it did any good. Given the Jerusalem business, I'm guessing it didn't.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
In a pair of tweets this morning, Trump has explicitly endorsed accused child predator Roy Moore.

This is a day after Mitch McConnel backtracked from previous statements suggesting that Moore should step down, now preferring the President’s old line, the voters in Alabama should decide.

No word from my state’s Republican senator, who initially said that Moore should be removed from the Senate if elected. But we can probably guess now that it won’t happen.

If you are holding out hope that congressional Republicans might possibly step up if Trump crosses some hypothetical line, I’d abandon it.

Hell, I’d bet Donnie could fire Mueller today and nothing will happen to him. Friday news dump? Don’t be shocked.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No, it's always been difficult to picture the Pussygrabber In Chief failing to endorse Moore. They'll have such good times in Washington, sharing so many interests!

330 days to Election Day 2018....
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
CBC News on Radio One had 71% of Alabama people think that this Moore person is a victim of false news and invention re having sex with girls when he was in his 30s. There was other less polite commentary, meant in humour, about the Hillbilly Riviera, intellectual level due to inbreeding. drinking a lot of alcohol, praying for your pubescent cousin to have sex with you, and that their election of this Moore person will occur on Toothless Tuesday. Humour works best when it contains some truth.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Mr President, you have the White House Executive Chef at your disposal, plus you would have access to the finest quality food, including really good meats if you are a meat eater.

Why, then, do you prefer KFC, McDonald's and Diet Coke?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2017/dec/04/trump-diets-world-leaders-mcdonalds-book?CMP=fb_gu
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Because he's over 70 years old and too old to change.
Because he was born in the generation where fast food was considered great food.
Because he believes he is immortal, immune to all the rules and strictures that we mortals have to adhere to.
Because he is a vast sucking void, the black hole at the center of the universe, that needs to be eternally filled and yet can never be, doomed to perpetual hunger and dissatisfaction no matter what new, younger, hotter wife he acquires, what pillars he gilds, what good things he destroys. Look on his works, ye mighty!
There, I knew if I kept on swinging at it I'd hit it out of the park.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Meh. Fancy Cordon Bleu stuff is all well and good, but sometimes you just want a cheeseburger and fries.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
The Jim Gaffigan McDonald's bit is always worth a listen when the subject of McDonalds shame comes up.

I try not to tell anyone what to not get upset about today, and yeah, I'd use the White House kitchen differently, but this is low on my list of reasons to think Trump is bad for the country.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
CBC News on Radio One had 71% of Alabama people think that this Moore person is a victim of false news and invention re having sex with girls when he was in his 30s. There was other less polite commentary, meant in humour, about the Hillbilly Riviera, intellectual level due to inbreeding. drinking a lot of alcohol, praying for your pubescent cousin to have sex with you, and that their election of this Moore person will occur on Toothless Tuesday. Humour works best when it contains some truth.

FYI: I believe that Southerners take great offense at that kind of humor.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Meh. Fancy Cordon Bleu stuff is all well and good, but sometimes you just want a cheeseburger and fries.

Yup. This isn't anything new. Made a news splash when he was elected. He simply prefers fast food. And chocolate cake.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I just want everyone to know that anything incriminating or really stupid I appear to have written on this thread was actually written by trumpy's lawyer.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Two very critical gaps in the Trump administration is the diplomatic corps and the elite military.

We generally have 188 Ambassadorships. Trump has appointed only 60 ambassadors, leaving many critical posts unfilled. On top of that Tillerson has put a hiring freeze on the rest of the foreign service and he does not seem to be ready to lift the freeze. Now Colin Power and Madalene Albrecht, former Secretary of States, are expressing concern about how weak the service has become.

We are also seeing the military being ripped apart at the seams. Look at the list of accidents that the 7th Fleet has had in the past year. While all the accidents have been found to be the fault of the commanding officers, they point to the systemic problems of the fleet being overextended and the personnel are fatigued.

Also, our elite forces are coming apart. There have been several situations where we have lost servicemen in the field and they are not being replaced fast enough.

And now Trump wants to undo the National Monuments.

How long, oh Lord? How Long?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
This isn't anything new. Made a news splash when he was elected. He simply prefers fast food. And chocolate cake.

And TWO scoops of ice cream! (I guess that's typical of a three-year-old, which he is mentally and emotionally.)
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
On top of that Tillerson has put a hiring freeze on the rest of the foreign service and he does not seem to be ready to lift the freeze.

Is this to save money? Or is a point being made about such positions (i.e. that they are irrelevant)? Or something else?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
First and foremost, it will (again) pander to his base by cutting back on the useless, bloated Deep State (as they see it).

To me it also embodies his isolationism. It also weakens the executive and thus strengthens the presidency.

In the meantime, it's putting a brake on people acquiring skills and knowhow in foreign diplomacy which will be hard to make up. It's sobering and terrifying to see just how quickly well-established institutions and nations can be trashed.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Sometimes, I think T is simply trying to undo everything in gov't--particularly anything Obama did, but basically everything.

When he was little, he reportedly had a habit of kicking down other kids' block creations. This might be the same thing.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
This isn't anything new. Made a news splash when he was elected. He simply prefers fast food. And chocolate cake.

And TWO scoops of ice cream! (I guess that's typical of a three-year-old, which he is mentally and emotionally.)
Heart attack in the making at his age.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
His junk-food habit should be encouraged.

The way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
First and foremost, it will (again) pander to his base by cutting back on the useless, bloated Deep State (as they see it).

It looks like the plan is to get in private contractors to root out his problems with the deep state:

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/04/trump-white-house-weighing-plans-for-private-spies-to-counter-deep-state-enemies/
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[Paranoid]
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
Well, we had this recently.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
First and foremost, it will (again) pander to his base by cutting back on the useless, bloated Deep State (as they see it).

It looks like the plan is to get in private contractors to root out his problems with the deep state:

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/04/trump-white-house-weighing-plans-for-private-spies-to-counter-deep-state-enemies/

Is Trump using Richard Nixon's playbook?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Is Trump using Richard Nixon's playbook?

I think this has been posted before, but here's a piece by Art Buchwald that was published, amongst other places, in the Reno Gazette-Journal on July 12, 1973.

[ 05. December 2017, 12:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
On top of that Tillerson has put a hiring freeze on the rest of the foreign service and he does not seem to be ready to lift the freeze.

Is this to save money? Or is a point being made about such positions (i.e. that they are irrelevant)? Or something else?
Oh, this one is easy. You cannot be appointed to anything by this administration, not so much as dog catcher, if you have ever said anything denigrating Lyin' Don. (He never ever forgives a slight.) Since this does let out a substantial swathe of Americans, the pool of possibles is already very small. On top of that, the desire to clamber onto the Titanic and help rearrange the deck chairs is, understandably, weak if you have the sense God gave a goat. This is how they ge\ot all those weirdos and cranks in -- because that's who was at the bottom of the barrel.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Drat, missed the edit window. I wanted to add a new and terrifying link. This is a free click and was referred to me by a friend of a Jewish friend, who adds, "'The president would like to start his own private Intelligence (haha) network. He could call them cool like "Super Spies" or SS for short.'

And the hair quite literally rises on the back of my neck."
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As indicated by my [Paranoid] icon above, I think that's conspiracy theorist territory myself.

Meanwhile, Mueller takes direct aim at the POTUS...is it happening...?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Meanwhile, Mueller takes direct aim at the POTUS...is it happening...?

I've long suspected that this would all come down to Trump's questionable finances. His uncreditworthiness is the perfect avenue for leverage.

As was said in another presidential scandal, follow the money.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Oh, I agree. See also Al Capone.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As indicated by my [Paranoid] icon above, I think that's conspiracy theorist territory myself.

Meanwhile, Mueller takes direct aim at the POTUS...is it happening...?

Nothing's going to happen. Mueller is going to be fired any day now by some Trump lackey at Justice, on the basis that "this has nothing to do with Russia," "bias," and "look what happened to the stock market when ABC ran the false report on Friday, I can't let this witch hunt destroy the economy."

And the GOP will do shit all about it.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Nothing's going to happen. Mueller is going to be fired any day now by some Trump lackey at Justice, on the basis that "this has nothing to do with Russia," "bias," and "look what happened to the stock market when ABC ran the false report on Friday, I can't let this witch hunt destroy the economy."

And the GOP will do shit all about it.

I think something may happen. Deutsche Welle report: Representative Maxine Waters of California and other Democrats have asked whether the bank's loans to Trump, made years before he ran for president, were in any way connected to Russia." trumpy borrowed $300million and Deutsche Bank owns half of his debt. The information disclosure will either happen now, or it will happen later.

Meanwhile, set the PVR record "All the President's Men", the movie about another one of these POTUSES** and being bad.


*is the plural of POTUS, POTUSES or POTI? Thinking hippopotamus and hippopotami.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Weeks after pulling support and money from accused child predator Roy Moore, the RNC is back to supporting him as of this morning.

Which is another clear example of why nothing is going to happen to Trump.

These people and the people who vote them into office DO NOT GIVE A SHIT about optics. And they have been served well by that attitude so far. They accepted the racist rapist in 2016, and it got them the White house, majorities in both sides of Congress, and a Supreme Court justice. They have no reason to pick a fight with Trump if he ends the investigation, and they won't.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
One day, in the not-too-distant future, he will DIE.

And will be answerable to a Higher Tribunal (as will we all).

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I can't believe Mueller doesn't have some form of dead man's handle in place against the eventuality of him being fired.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, apparently the latest defence is Who cares, no crime here!

He argues that a president can't obstruct justice. No such crime, for me!
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Fancy people don't agree to plea agreements unless the prosecutor has confidence that the potential witness has substantial, credible and reliable evidence implicate higher ups in the criminal enterprise in illegal behaviour. Someone else is going to be arrested and/or cop a plea.

Interesting that in House of Cards (Netflix series) Kevin Spacey is out due to sexual harassment/assault. Robin Wright is announced as being the focus of the last season. While art (if netflix is art, which is debatable) if it is of any use (also debatable) usually reflects society, perhaps the reflection here is distorted a bit. I'm putting my money on Ivanka as the candidate for the party of her daddy in your next election. No more ridiculous than what we've already seen in this, season one.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I hope they use orange paint on the walls of his prison cell. Then he can pretend he isn't there at all, coz he'd be invisible...

You really couldn't make it up.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If even the Westboro Baptist Church can't tolerate you any more, then you are pretty bad.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If even the Westboro Baptist Church can't tolerate you any more, then you are pretty bad.

Given that Westboro Baptist doesn't seem able to tolerate anyone outside the confines of their cult, I don't think this demonstrates anything one way or the other.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Is Trump using Richard Nixon's playbook?

I think this has been posted before, but here's a piece by Art Buchwald that was published, amongst other places, in the Reno Gazette-Journal on July 12, 1973.
Thanks for this. I had trouble reading that photocopy, so I dug up a text copy. Here's a text version (Blind Dive).

NOTE: that site is new to me, and there's no "About". Seems to be someone's anti-Trump site.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
So this Jerusalem is the capital business seems to be getting a lot of noise.

While the bleatings of ME potentates who can hardly claim to be democratic doesn't bother me much tbh, the impact on the peace process does. As does the symbolism.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Reading another board suggests that in the US a) this move is not simply being supported by con-evos b) outside these boards, support by Americans for this move appears to be the default opinion. Am I completely wrong about this?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Jerusalem:

My comments from the previous page.

I doubt that most Americans have much of an interest, and most probably don't really know anything about the situation.

Fund/evo folks, and anyone else of an end-times bent, may well think it's a good idea...if only to get things moving, so the rapture and/or 2nd coming happen, and they can be free of this current world.

I think it's stupid and dangerous for the US to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It will trigger more trouble for Israel. And moving the US consulate/embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is more of the same. AND it endangers everyone involved.

IIRC, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have both said this would be a bad idea.

If T were a religious man, I'd been concerned that he's *trying* to bring on the end times--rather like those people who've taken roan/red cattle to Jerusalem to fulfill a prophecy. Of course, he might have people whispering suggestions to him.

T would be interesting casting as the anti-Christ. Rather than slick, suave, smart, and possibly directly of the devil, T is broken, crazy, barely functional, and just a messed-up human being.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
My question here is not about Trump but about the default perception of the rights and wrongs of Jerusalem as Israel's capital Stateside. I've asked it again in another thread.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

FWIW: I did address that at the beginning of my post.
[Angel]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If even the Westboro Baptist Church can't tolerate you any more, then you are pretty bad.

One phrase from the linked-to report caught my attention:
quote:
your refusal to repent of your proud sin
So all he has to do is "repent of his proud sin" and he'll be back on Westboro's A list. He's certainly proud of his sins, that's for sure.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
AFAIK, Westboro isn't really in the business of giving second chances.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
So far as I can see the issue of Jerusalem is a matter of indifference to most Americans. Lyin' Don says it was a campaign promise. My circle of acquaintance suggests that it's either a piece of meat thrown to his base, =or= that Vladimir Putin is using his sock puppet again. IMO these are not mutually exclusive.

In slightly different news this is sure to enrage him. We're sure to have a surly tweet soon.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In slightly different news this is sure to enrage him. We're sure to have a surly tweet soon.

I was thrilled with their decision. But I'm sure Trump will continue to maintain that he was really their first choice and turned them down.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Chuck Schumer is in favor of the Jerusalem move as well. He and Ted Cruz have worked hand in hand on this in the past.

There are also quite a few Democrats in Congress who have backed bills to refuse federal money and contracts to individuals and companies backing boycott / divest.

I don’t doubt that Trump is acting at the behest of the Bannon-wing here, but this one appeals to lots of folks across the board.

I tend to lean towards “this is more provocative than helpful” on this one, fwiw.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My question here is not about Trump but about the default perception of the rights and wrongs of Jerusalem as Israel's capital Stateside. I've asked it again in another thread.

Most Americans are indifferent, but it's something of a fetish object for those on the further reaches of the American right, particularly the Christianist and anti-Islamic factions. (Those are not necessarily the same people.)

Here's the (partial) opinion of one American blogger who belongs to neither of those groups.

quote:
It is absolutely silly to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and/or move the US Embassy to Israel to Jerusalem in exchange for nothing. It is poor strategy, it is bad policy, it is a pointless and ultimately self defeating tactic, and it is diplomatically backwards. The reason the US hasn’t moved it’s embassy to Israel to Jerusalem and/or recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital isn’t just the security concerns. It is because either of these potential changes in US policy are most effectively used as motivational carrots to cajole the Israelis into negotiating in, if not good faith, then better faith. Unilaterally giving these to the Israelis removes very valuable and effective leverage from the US’s diplomatic tool kit.
Another great plan from the master negotiator who [ghost] wrote The Art of the Deal.

[ 06. December 2017, 14:20: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In slightly different news this is sure to enrage him. We're sure to have a surly tweet soon.

Bully for Time magazine! That sends a message!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In slightly different news this is sure to enrage him. We're sure to have a surly tweet soon.

Bully for Time magazine! That sends a message!
A few weeks ago a friend sent me a mock-up of a TIME Person of the Year cover with Robert Mueller. That would have been great, but this is even better. Well done, TIME! (I also heard that the announcement was made on the Today Show -- which just fired co-host Matt Laurer for sexual abuse.)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Taylor Swift [Paranoid]

The Economist ran a piece lately about how her playbook mirrored Trump's - build a diehard core fanbase, continue extremely personal vendettas, stay mute on racism...
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, The Crawling Chaos has duly announced to the World that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, according to the BBC.

No doubt he will soon be Tweeting the date and time of Armageddon.

Are the End Times upon us, do you think?

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :
 
Somebody has probably pointed out this already.

Trump's pissing contest with Kim Jong Un, and his moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, are steps designed specifically to trigger war, something straight out of Steve Bannon's playbook.

" Bannon doesn’t just believe that we are in an existential X288MB with Islam or with China. It seems he wants to exacerbate those conflicts into a new world war. As a believer in Strauss and Howe’s theory of history, Bannon fantasizes that he can use that cataclysm to forge a completely new order. He is now in a position to make that a reality."

https://www.thenation.com/article/steve-bannon-wants-to-start-world-war-iii/
 
Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :
 
". . . an existential WAR with Islam and with China."
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I found X288MB to be far more existential....
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In slightly different news this is sure to enrage him. We're sure to have a surly tweet soon.

Bully for Time magazine! That sends a message!
Amen!! [Yipee]

I've been hoping he'd say something self-incriminating, in response to all the #metoo furor and firings. Like maybe "hey, what's the big deal? I did that sort of stuff, and no one complained". Maybe not being on the cover will push him over the edge a bit?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
What is "X288MB", please?

I looked it up, but only found references to computer files and single-grade engine oils!
[Ultra confused]

Is it L33T code or something? Though I would think that would pop up.

Thx.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Trump said he would tear down the traditions by which this country is governed. I didn't hear but it seems to be true, that he will tear apart the country in the process.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
X288MB isn't l33t. I ran it through everything I could find here.

English translation required.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, np. [Smile]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I think the computer specification was a typo as apostate630 followed that post with a correction - saying he'd meant to type war not X288MB
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
CK--

Ah, thanks! I did see that post, but I didn't put it together with the previous one.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Me either. Thx.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Has no one noted the incoherence in recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and playing footsie with antisemites? Or should I have said cynicism?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Perhaps he doesn't care, as long as they all vote for him?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
He wouldn't know a Zionist from an antisemite if each of them bit him on either testicle.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It's a version of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". We see this with showers like Britain First; one minute they're claiming they're going to protect Jews from the nasty Muslims, because of course the main threat to British Jews is Muslims (can anyone recall any friction between Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK? My experience is they rub along pretty well, even with occasional local newspaper "Synagogue gives space for Muslims to pray while Mosque undergoes repairs/Mosque raises money for Synagogue after it's targeted by far right thugs" type stories) not the far right anti-semites who daub swastikas on Jewish cemeteries and stuff, obviously.

The next minute they're off to Poland to talk to anti-semitic fringe-lunatic priests.

The connecting thread between the "Support Israel at all costs" bunch and the KKK/Nazi types is they both despise Muslims. And we know that Trump isn't likely to be found at Friday prayers in the foreseeable future.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Miss Amanda said:
quote:
He wouldn't know a Zionist from an antisemite if each of them bit him on either testicle
He has two ?

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Has no one noted the incoherence in recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and playing footsie with antisemites? Or should I have said cynicism?

The less extreme anti-Semites support Israel for much the same reason white Americans supported Liberia in the nineteenth century: they're much more comfortable with [Jews / blacks] living "over there" than right next door.

[ 08. December 2017, 13:32: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Has no one noted the incoherence in recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and playing footsie with antisemites? Or should I have said cynicism?

The less extreme anti-Semites support Israel for much the same reason white Americans supported Liberia in the nineteenth century: they're much more comfortable with [Jews / blacks] living "over there" than right next door.
Besides, recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol will trigger violence that will kill off both Jews and those other non-white types, while at the same time the Jewish moneylenders will fill Trump's coffers with money because they are so grateful for what he has done for them. It is not incoherent; it is a win-win!

Sometimes even I worry about my degree of cynicism...
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
One must look very closely, but I wouldn't. Unless you have a telescope or some other distant viewing tool.

A social scientist who studies lies (what a great deal of material he must have!) analyzes the peculiar qualities of Lyin' Don's prevarication. This is from the Post so it'll cost you a click.

The other mildly notable happening on this front is the speech he gave about moving the embassy to Jerusalem. At the end of that speech he seemed to lose it -- slurring, stuttering. There's YouTube video of it. His press office said his throat was dry; comedians have gone wild with suggestions about slipping dentures. (Boy, would he hate it to be known that he has to wear dentures. I mean, he already has the orange toupee...) But this has gotten the WH to agree to have him get a physical, the first one since before he declared his candidacy. If it actually happens, this cannot be but for the good.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Has no one noted the incoherence in recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and playing footsie with antisemites? Or should I have said cynicism?

The less extreme anti-Semites support Israel for much the same reason white Americans supported Liberia in the nineteenth century: they're much more comfortable with [Jews / blacks] living "over there" than right next door.
Besides, recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol will trigger violence that will kill off both Jews and those other non-white types, while at the same time the Jewish moneylenders will fill Trump's coffers with money because they are so grateful for what he has done for them. It is not incoherent; it is a win-win!

Sometimes even I worry about my degree of cynicism...

Given that he is leading (and yes, "leading" is precisely what he is doing-- even if it is leading over a cliff) a party who has recently
celebrated passing legislation that has been estimated will lead to the untimely deaths of 10,000 of their own citizens annually, the fact that they might carelessly bring about the deaths of 1000s of "those people over there" is hardly surprising.

Of all the many, many things that have been said about both Trump and the current GOP, "casual cruelty" most hits the mark. The casualness of it is the thing that most appalls/ terrifies/ enrages me.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:


Of all the many, many things that have been said about both Trump and the current GOP, "casual cruelty" most hits the mark. The casualness of it is the thing that most appalls/ terrifies/ enrages me.

That quality also puzzled the scientist who studies lies. Most people lie for personal advantage, or from motives of kindness ("Oh no, you're not fat!") Only a small fraction of the lies that most people tell are cruel or malicious. But for him that percentage is much much higher, more than six times more than most people. This is so high, it's hard to attribute it to being a basically evil man. I'm thinking mental illness here.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:


Of all the many, many things that have been said about both Trump and the current GOP, "casual cruelty" most hits the mark. The casualness of it is the thing that most appalls/ terrifies/ enrages me.

That quality also puzzled the scientist who studies lies. Most people lie for personal advantage, or from motives of kindness ("Oh no, you're not fat!") Only a small fraction of the lies that most people tell are cruel or malicious. But for him that percentage is much much higher, more than six times more than most people. This is so high, it's hard to attribute it to being a basically evil man. I'm thinking mental illness here.
There are certainly good reasons to suspect that, as many notable psychiatrists have already indicated.

But the thing is, it's not just Trump. The entire GOP seems to be intent on enacting policies that yes, enrich themselves and their donors (their constituents, not so much)-- but to do so gleefully, cheerfully. They appear to be taking great delight in, for example, taking away access to health care for seriously ill children (the program that literally saved the life of my infant granddaughter-- very grateful she wasn't born 10 months later) or separating immigrant families or punishing DACA kids. They seem to see these horrific, cruel policies not as some sort of "necessary evil" but rather as fun, happy exercises of power that are to be literally celebrated with the popping of champagne corks and a heaping helping of poor-shaming or immigrant scapegoating on the side.

If that is mental illness it is very much a mass delusion.

[ 08. December 2017, 14:11: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Oh I dunno Brenda, I'm sure many people lie to "fit in". Go to a bar on Saturday night and I'm sure there is plenty of support for Trump, just as there is plenty for Brexit in the same situation.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
There's also White House spokesliar Sarah Huckabee Sanders having the gall to lecture John Lewis on the Civil Rights Movement. I couldn't keep my analysis of that one civil so I started a Hell thread.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:


Of all the many, many things that have been said about both Trump and the current GOP, "casual cruelty" most hits the mark. The casualness of it is the thing that most appalls/ terrifies/ enrages me.

That quality also puzzled the scientist who studies lies. Most people lie for personal advantage, or from motives of kindness ("Oh no, you're not fat!") Only a small fraction of the lies that most people tell are cruel or malicious. But for him that percentage is much much higher, more than six times more than most people. This is so high, it's hard to attribute it to being a basically evil man. I'm thinking mental illness here.
There are certainly good reasons to suspect that, as many notable psychiatrists have already indicated.

But the thing is, it's not just Trump. The entire GOP seems to be intent on enacting policies that yes, enrich themselves and their donors (their constituents, not so much)-- but to do so gleefully, cheerfully. They appear to be taking great delight in, for example, taking away access to health care for seriously ill children (the program that literally saved the life of my infant granddaughter-- very grateful she wasn't born 10 months later) or separating immigrant families or punishing DACA kids. They seem to see these horrific, cruel policies not as some sort of "necessary evil" but rather as fun, happy exercises of power that are to be literally celebrated with the popping of champagne corks and a heaping helping of poor-shaming or immigrant scapegoating on the side.

If that is mental illness it is very much a mass delusion.

They're libertarians at heart. The see taxing the rich as theft. Better people die than the government steal. Essentially it's politicised sociopathy.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But 'America is Great Again', so it's OK.....

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hopefully (if there is any justice at all in this multiverse), these gobshites will sooner or later receive their due reward.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This link ought to work. I always wonder if the Facebook ones really get you to the right place. In this case it's a cartoon about the theological importance of the President.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re T's slurring of speech:

I'd been thinking strokes or TIAs (mini-strokes). (Not that I wish that on him.) I hope the doc who does his physical is NOT his long-term doc from NY (the one who said T's health is the bestest), and IS fully qualified for all the things that need to be checked out.

Re T lying:

He says tons of things that are untrue. For lying, he'd have to a) know the truth and b) purposely say an untruth. He's so impaired, in ways that shift like a kaleidescope, that if he does know the truth about something, he may forget it quickly.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I think the slurring ‘Shatesh’ thing sounded like it was due to poorly fitting teeth. He was holding his mouth in a strange way throughout the speech - and closing it often as if his teeth were trying to escape.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Trump’s teeth escape and go on the rampage.
H,mmmm, does anyone else smell a Hollywood Blockbuster?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Was he trying to sound like Winston Churchill?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Trump’s teeth escape and go on the rampage.
H,mmmm, does anyone else smell a Hollywood Blockbuster?

I'm sure I saw a similar Terry Gilliam animation in a Monty Python episode (but maybe that was just dancing teeth).
 
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :
 
Surely the president of the United States can afford a decent dentist?

It's all the manic hand movements that worry me most.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Conrad Pooh's Dancing Teeth

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Surely the president of the United States can afford a decent dentist?

One would think he could afford a decent barber (or stylist) as well.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
A pithy take on Trump's America from journalist/novelist Omar el-Akkad. I like it because it treats Trump not as an aberration, but as a symptom of deeper problems. Enjoy (if that's the word for it).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
quote:
...'when it comes to everything from decimating the social safety net to waging perpetual war, the President hinders with buffoonery what his party would otherwise undertake with unfaltering resolve.'
That is scary. Very, very, very scary.

2018 is going to be one HELL of a year.

[Disappointed]

God help us all.

IJ
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Surely the president of the United States can afford a decent dentist?

It's all the manic hand movements that worry me most.

I’m sure even before he was elected he has had the best dentist and stylist money can buy. And that he totally ignores both of them.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Surely the president of the United States can afford a decent dentist?

It's all the manic hand movements that worry me most.

I’m sure even before he was elected he has had the best dentist and stylist money can buy. And that he totally ignores both of them.
 
Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :
 
[/QUOTE]They're libertarians at heart. The see taxing the rich as theft. Better people die than the government steal. Essentially it's politicised sociopathy. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Karl, P.J. O'Rourke once defined Libertarians as "Republicans who like to smoke dope and get laid." Good for a chuckle or two, but your definition of Libertarianism has the virtue of being far more precise and damning. Thanks. I'm much obliged.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Surely the president of the United States can afford a decent dentist?

It's all the manic hand movements that worry me most.

I suspect it comes down to getting him to visit one. He might see this as an acknowledgement of imperfection.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Of course, a racist governor of Mississippi would invite a racist president to the dedication of a museum on racism in the Deep South. Note, no prominent civil rights personality was at the dedication. Talk about whitewashing our history!

It's getting to be something when I wake up and wonder what has the Daftwit done today.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
That is scary. Very, very, very scary.

2018 is going to be one HELL of a year.

[Disappointed]

God help us all.

IJ




Declaration of War - Brief Twitter Form



Date:___________ Time: ____________

Name of enemy to be attacked (required: circle all which apply):
(a) North Korea
(b) Iran
(c) Mexico
(d) other, write in: __________________
(e) doesn't matter, just in need of a war

Desired outcome:
(a) distraction from Russia
(b) fire and fury, the likes the world has never seen
(c) you have think anyway, so why not think big?
(d) My whole life is about winning. I don't lose often. I almost never lose.

[ 09. December 2017, 18:25: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Depressing analysis of why Crooked Don is doing this. That is in addition to the desire to distract from the Russia investigation.

I personally believe that Lyin' Don will 'forget' to get that physical after all. But since he is in the White House, hopefully the physician there won't be a complete incompetent. In a spirit of Oliver Twist asking for more gruel, the Post editorial board suggests he add his tax returns as well.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I know it sounds unlikely but a friend of mine said it might be a side effect of an anti-psychotic medicine. Of course when it was prescribed to Trump it wasn't called an anti-psychotic, rather something to bring down the stress of his Asian trip. My friend said he had experienced such lack of control of his jaw and dry mouth when he did a few weeks in a psych ward for extreme depression years ago. (He is doing well now.) If it is an effect of psych meds, I wish they worked better on Trump.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
New name for Daftwit: Saglutupiaġataq (“the compulsive liar” in Iñupiatun, which is an Alaskan tribe).

Apparently, Trump wants to abrogate all treaties the US has with Native Americans and open up their lands to private development under the control of individual states. Read here

[ 09. December 2017, 23:03: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
Surely the president of the United States can afford a decent dentist?

It's all the manic hand movements that worry me most.

I’m sure even before he was elected he has had the best dentist and stylist money can buy. And that he totally ignores both of them.
His mom had somewhat odd hair (or hairdo), too. And, as of when his NY doc wrote a note about his health (last year??), T was still taking Minoxodil/Rogaine to prevent hair loss--and it's known to have mental effects.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Depressing analysis of why Crooked Don is doing this. That is in addition to the desire to distract from the Russia investigation.

{Retrieves old fundamentalist hat from the attic dust bunnies.}

Yeah, sounds about right, as interpretation.

Ok, I can sort of see doing the Jerusalem thing for that purpose. Especially if you (gen) are sick of this world. And you get to feel like you're part of God's plan, etc. But the consequences for people...

This and other actions/beliefs smack of trying to force God's hand. Like the (IMNSHO) idiots who've taken red/roan cattle to Jerusalem to fulfill a prophecy. What, God can't manage that?

Even Jesus said he didn't know "the day or the hour" when end-times stuff would play out. He just told us to "watch", to pay attention. (Though I'm no longer fundamentalist, I do pay a bit of attention, just in case.)

But due to the embassy fall-out, people have died and there'll be more; and if God's hand really could be forced, lots of people would die--many of whom, by this kind of belief, would go to Hell forever.

ISTM that if someone is going to Hell, you have a few choices: leave them be; pray for them; witness to them; love them in a gentle way. What you *don't* get to do is send them to Hell early, depriving them of a chance to change and accept salvation. What would God think about that?

Love them all, and let God sort it out.

{Takes off hat, and slides it back to the dust bunnies.}
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The Orange Ozymandias seems to be becoming a shockingly awful figure of impending doom and disaster, as he stumbles from one Armageddon scenario to another....

IKTIACW, but is it really wrong to pray earnestly for his swift removal from the world?

(And the removal - or disabling - of his emissaries, too, of course.)

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Bishops Finger, I've been debating that in my mind for the past year. I'm totally against wishing for anyone's death, but... I've often wondered if it would have been wrong to wish for the death of Hitler, Amin, Bin Laden, etc. Trump's rapidly joining that infamous bunch.

I just want him gone. Resignation or impeachment would be preferable, but whatever it takes. And natural death (he's tempting a heart attack -- if he indeed has a heart) and assassination are both possible scenarios.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, I don't suppose we're the only ones who want to see him gone!

Natural death, resignation, or impeachment (and jail) will do. Not assassination - that would turn him into a martyr... [Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, I don't suppose we're the only ones who want to see him gone!

Natural death, resignation, or impeachment (and jail) will do. Not assassination - that would turn him into a martyr... [Disappointed]

IJ

Exactly. Do we want Saint Donald to join the pantheon up there beside Saint Ronnie? Even impeachment is fraught with peril; he needs to resign of his (exteriorly) own free will on national TV. (I don't care who twists his arm in back.)

What I dream of, the day I yearn for, is that blissful day sure to arrive sometime, in which I open the Post and there is not a word about him. That there are no products, no hotels, no neckties, no wines, with his name on. When comedians no long have to razz him, when his repellent image is as distant and unfamiliar as that of Caligula, who, I assume, most of us wouldn't recognize on the train. When those apps that replace his image with the more soothing photo of a random kitten can be disabled. I dream of the full Voldemort, him consigned to the utmost oblivion for all time.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
when his repellent image is as distant and unfamiliar as that of Caligula, who, I assume, most of us wouldn't recognize on the train.

His toga would give him away, I would imagine -- as the orange wig would give away the Fartletter-in-Chief.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the NY Times, but it's important: evangelicals abandoning that name, because of what Republicans have done to it. The money quote:
"Where exactly is the bottom? And at what point do you pull back from associating yourself with a political party and a religious term you once took pride in but that are now doing harm to the things you treasure?
Institutional renewal and regeneration are possible, and I’m going to continue to push for them. But for now a solid majority of Republicans and self-described evangelicals are firmly aboard the Trump train, which is doing its utmost to give a seat of privilege to Mr. Moore. So for those of us who still think of ourselves as conservative and Christian, it’s enough already."
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From that article:
quote:
Rather than Republicans and people of faith checking his most unappealing sides, the president is dragging down virtually everyone within his orbit.
An interesting thought - an Orange Hole, perhaps, by which the world will be consumed?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is from the NY Times, but it's important: evangelicals abandoning that name, because of what Republicans have done to it. The money quote:
"Where exactly is the bottom? And at what point do you pull back from associating yourself with a political party and a religious term you once took pride in but that are now doing harm to the things you treasure?
Institutional renewal and regeneration are possible, and I’m going to continue to push for them. But for now a solid majority of Republicans and self-described evangelicals are firmly aboard the Trump train, which is doing its utmost to give a seat of privilege to Mr. Moore. So for those of us who still think of ourselves as conservative and Christian, it’s enough already."

That's the strength of the trumpian Christians isn't it? They understand God better than anyone, they know how to make God stay away.

As for "enough already", it is ridiculous that this is written only now, and ridiculous that they ignored all the previous stuff. And frankly, I do not believe any of it. These Evangelical Christians worship themselves and they've embraced the many coloured beast, as well as their gilded toad idol.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I agree. The word 'evangelical' is lost to us. I only hope we won't be forced to reboot the word 'Christian' as well. If Moore is elected, we may have no choice.

Oh, and this should amuse: Saturday Night Live's cold open.

[ 10. December 2017, 20:39: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
OK, in the spirit of the season, this is sure to entertain: the MAGA baseball cap Christmas ornament on Amazon. Don't buy it, nor all the awful merch directly below. Scroll down, to the customer comments. Almost as good as the cones for the 3-ring binder, allegedly full of women, when Romney ran.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Do you reckon that Jim and Tammy Bakker could get a run as Republican candidates? It looks like the poor dears were ahead of their time.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
OK, in the spirit of the season, this is sure to entertain: the MAGA baseball cap Christmas ornament on Amazon. Don't buy it, nor all the awful merch directly below. Scroll down, to the customer comments. Almost as good as the cones for the 3-ring binder, allegedly full of women, when Romney ran.

Such as: 'Not my Ornament!'
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A Post discussion of the is he a toddler or not issue.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is from the NY Times, but it's important: evangelicals abandoning that name, because of what Republicans have done to it. The money quote:
"Where exactly is the bottom? And at what point do you pull back from associating yourself with a political party and a religious term you once took pride in but that are now doing harm to the things you treasure?

Institutional renewal and regeneration are possible, and I’m going to continue to push for them. But for now a solid majority of Republicans and self-described evangelicals are firmly aboard the Trump train, which is doing its utmost to give a seat of privilege to Mr. Moore. So for those of us who still think of ourselves as conservative and Christian, it’s enough already."

This New Yorker article asks the obvious inverse of the question and directs it at Republican politicians:

quote:
The Republicans have a fifty-two-seat majority, meaning that Moore’s presence would be helpful but, in terms of control of the chamber, not decisive. What would they tolerate in order to secure the fifty-first vote? Put another way, if the Party is willing to give its money and its credibility to protect a candidate accused of molesting teen-agers, what might it talk itself into doing to protect the President? Robert Mueller may be interested in the answer.
So this is how far the Republican party is willing to go for a vote that's useful but not absolutely necessary. (With Pence as vice president Republicans can control the Senate with as few as 50 Senators.) How far do you think they would be willing to go if political control were actually on the line?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here's your answer: Democracy will go before Lyin' Don will. They've sacrificed so much, the GOP will hardly notice.

[ 11. December 2017, 19:31: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Is your democracy already pretty much on life support? Your senator Franken resigns while the fact pattern regarding trumpy is more extensive regarding sexual misconduct while he supports another pervert. WTF in all the literal meaning of WTF.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
np--

Franken addressed that disparity, naming both the president and Roy Moore.

As to the rest: the last 30 yrs. or so have proven there are limits to US democracy. Including whether the folks in DC believe in it, listen to each other, and listen to their constituents.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Aaaand he just sexually harassed a sitting US Senator on Twitter.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Do you have a link to that, please?

There doesn't seem to anything about it on BBC News, though they do mention the notorious Alabama election..... [Disappointed]

O America - a government made up of rapists, paedophiles, and pussy-grabbers? And this somehow makes you GREAT again?

Fie, fie, fie, for shame on all those who vote/voted for these criminals.

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
From the horse's mouth.

Don't tell me that was an accident or innocent.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It's the conjunction with his previous tweet that gets me. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Do you have a link to that, please?

IJ

I live to serve...

Heard it briefly referred to on BBC radio news this morning - a sort of comment in passing.

It does seem remarkable that while currently some very high-level people are being sacked and reduced to the ranks in the most public way, on accusation alone, Mr Trump remains virtuously bright and unsullied, even though accusations surrounding his behaviour circulated freely during his campaign, before he was even President.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Truly, man creates god in his own image.....

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is free and especially nice because they had to call her out of Bible study to see it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Is there really no way you Usanians can get rid of The Great Orange Incubus?

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Not so long as we have a Congress so apparently ready and willing to kiss his big fat you-know-what.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
300-odd days, folks. To the 2018 election. We must hold strong. FWIW his latest tweet is exciting the usual condemnation.

[ 12. December 2017, 18:13: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I'm still gobsmacked as to how you people put up with such an egregious- and obvious - monster as your Head of State.

[Confused]

IJ
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I'm still gobsmacked as to how you people put up with such an egregious- and obvious - monster as your Head of State.

[Confused]

IJ

Yes but it's not so easy though, is it? There are a few people over here I wouldn't mind if they disappeared to put it mildly
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sadly, you are, of course, right.

My sympathies are with the majority of Usanians who did not vote for the Great Trumpkin, and also with those who now wish that they hadn't voted for It...

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I did not vote for him, and will never vote for him. His entire party is now complicit, enabling his excesses, so they're dead to me too.

I am preparing for the march in January; the first sign is going to read "Molesters, Abusers & Gropers Vote GOP." Red and blue, on white, should catch the eye, don't you think?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, it lends itself to a chaunt, viz:

M A Gee, M A Gee, M A Gee, Vote Gee O Pee or something along those lines....

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
It also fits in with the whole MAGA thing -- "Molester, Abusers, and Gropers Again."
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
His entire party is now complicit, enabling his excesses, so they're dead to me too.

But not, I asssume, the party of Clinton, Kennedy(s), Condit, Edwards, Weiner, Frank, Conyers, Franken, et al.

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Just-as-badism is a very low moral standard and a terrible argument. It works but.

Romanlion, this thread is always better for your participation. It's like multiculturalism, but for ideologies. To adapt the giggly '70's racism of some of my parents' generation, your're our token conservative!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Well there is that crucial distinction that the GOP is in complete power, and none of those people are.

And the further thought that the Democrats seem ready to sever contact with current abusers, whereas the GOP elects them and cossets them. I wait only for the day when they supply 14-year-olds to them -- soon, I fear.

If you have a Post click, Alexandra Petri explains Lyin' Don to us in her inimitable style.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I'm still gobsmacked as to how you people put up with such an egregious- and obvious - monster as your Head of State.

[Confused]


Consumption of comfort food and substances is probably way up. [Biased]

Again, what can we legally, non-violently, ethically do? (I might be willing to bend that last one.) We can't *force* Congress to do anything--especially when T's party is in power.

There was an impeachment vote last week. It failed. Even most of the Democrats weren't for it.

Some people (both Congressfolk and private people) think we should just wait for the next presidential election...glossing over all the damage T is likely to do...every day...for the next three years.

Some of the women who've accused T of sexual assault/harassment have been more public and vocal in the last couple of days. And the tape of T talking with Howard Stern, about the joys of being able to walk through the dressing rooms at the beauty pageant he ran, resurfaced.

Right now, the best bets (IMHO) are a) Mueller; b) T saying things to incriminate himself; and c) T throwing a hissy fit, taking his toys, and going home. (I.e., resigning in a huff.)

Separately, I'm wondering if T is going to say something offensive about San Francisco. Our mayor died this morning. We're a sanctuary city (limiting our cooperation with the Feds about undocumented immigrants). And I'm sure he could come up with lots of other material.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the Atlantic, questioning whether Crooked Don really has any shame. The answer is no.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Just-as-badism is a very low moral standard and a terrible argument.

And the reason 95% of the participating American Electorate vote the way they do.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
If you think things cannot get any worse, you have no imagination and no sense of history.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If you think things cannot get any worse, you have no imagination and no sense of history.

Obviously. I would also have to be deaf, dumb, and blind.

100% of the previously referenced 95% are two of three.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Amen, np.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Roy Moore LOST in Alabama!!!!!

I can't wait to hear Trump whine about it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Hallelujah!
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Roy Moore LOST in Alabama!!!!!

I can't wait to hear Trump whine about it.

Surprisingly conciliatory tweet from the POTS.

You know they had to run this over with him several times. “Mr. President, just in case something bad happens in Alabama, we have a pre-written message all set. It is very important for your agenda that you appear calm and capable, even in the face of a setback. So please, no tweeting tonight.”

And now he’s just a ticking time bomb...
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Wait till morning.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Surprisingly conciliatory tweet from the POTS.

Who stole his phone and tweeted that? It is so totally not his style -- it's mostly complete sentences for one thing.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Gropo the Great was probably too busy choking on his own evil, orange, bile to even pick up his phone.

Doubtless some educated myrmidon obliged.

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Despite this, "The people of this country, at a decisive election, supported President Trump, and we feel like these allegations have been answered through that process," White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders (how does she sleep nights?) said on Monday, in response to the #MeToo dozen+ Trump allegators, the cognitive dissonance didn't work for Moore: He was not absolved by the voters including educated Republicans. It's all in next year's mid terms; holding on in Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia and North Dakota then taking Nevada and Arizona.

[ 13. December 2017, 08:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He is already claiming that he supported Luther Strange all along and this is what happens when you don't listen to ME.

Oh, and before we let yesterday's outrages slide into history, USA Today editorializes about his nasty comments. The money quote: “A president who would all but call Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand a whore is not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush.”

This is USA Today, the most vanilla and thin of the nation's newspapers.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He is already claiming that he supported Luther Strange all along and this is what happens when you don't listen to ME.

That is, of course, the completely predictable spin. Of course, what it opens him up to is the equally obvious counter-spin: Trump endorsed Strange. Who lost. And then endorsed Moore. Who lost.

If you are a Republican in a close election...do you want his endorsement or do you avoid it like the plague?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Not sure if this should be here or on the Media Sightings thread. Or in Hell. Ben Garrison's found the Ship of Fools.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
None of the above of course.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
What bugs me is that the 'Fake News' spouted by those who invented the expression, and who accuse others of 'Fake News', goes on!

The Washington Post has this headline:
quote:
Roy Moore, saying ‘immorality sweeps over our land,’ declines again to concede
In the article, Moore is quoted as claiming:
quote:
“This election was tainted by over $50 million dollars from outside groups who want to retain power and their corrupt ideology.”
Isn't he actually referring to his own side? This is utterly and profoundly weird, reminding of children's playground behaviour. Explains why some are into abuse? They've never grown up?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think what he really means is the GOP pulled his own, doubtless equivalent funding. I don't think there's much doubt that the Democrats put more money into that particular election than the Republicans.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Just-as-badism is a very low moral standard and a terrible argument.

And the reason 95% of the participating American Electorate vote the way they do.
I might be missing your point Romanlion, but didn't I cover that with my "It works but"?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You'll need Post access to see this, but the flagship paper has a major story today analyzing Trump's Russian weakness. He cannot, emotionally or psychologically, admit that the Russians meddled in the election; he has to have won because of his own wonderfulness and charisma. And therefore he cannot contemplate Russian interference. And so nothing is being done about it, which means that over in Moscow they're busily organizing for next time while no one is defending the ramparts.

This is a major story, Pulitzer quality material.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
If you click at just the right moment to stop the page from loading, you can still get the article before the splash screen comes up asking you to subscribe.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If you have a card to your local public library, use it at the library web site to log in. Often you can access many newspapers through their portal, since they subscribe.
And, if you have a .mil or .edu address, Jeff Bezos will give you a Post subscription.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Scouted around and found a free summary of the Post's work in Esquire. Another magazine doing sterling work this year.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You'll need Post access to see this, but the flagship paper has a major story today analyzing Trump's Russian weakness. He cannot, emotionally or psychologically, admit that the Russians meddled in the election; he has to have won because of his own wonderfulness and charisma. And therefore he cannot contemplate Russian interference. And so nothing is being done about it, which means that over in Moscow they're busily organizing for next time while no one is defending the ramparts.

A competing analysis is that Trump is guilty of some pretty big offenses relating to Russia and the 2016 election and is thus very motivated to shut down any discussion of the subject. I'm not sure we can definitely say whether Trump's behavior is due to a fragile ego or evidence of a cover-up (and it could very well be both!), but it's kind of amazing that the very simple explanation that Trump doesn't want to talk about Russia because he's hiding something doesn't even seem to be considered in most media accounts.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Out of curiosity, I wonder if T's borrowing bucks from Russia pre-run is a legal problem (beyond the fact that such debt, if it exists, could potentially render him vulnerable to blackmail by a hostile power)? That is, are US businesses permitted to borrow funds from just anybody, or are there restrictions on private business transactions involving governments with whom the US is at odds?

And I wonder if that's what hiding his tax returns is all about?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@Croesos

I agree. It's probably both, as you say, but I am sure he's hiding something, rather than just being vain.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The tax returns are key; without them we'll probably never now how hard the Russians are squeezing his balls. 300 days, to November 2018.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I suspect the big thing is the likelihood that Trump's main business for the past two decades has been laundering money for Russian and Kazakh gangsters. His role was probably pretty passive, but it's unlikely he didn't know what was going on. There was a pretty well-sourced Financial Times story a few years ago that pointed in that direction.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Can someone put any perspective at all on this?
quote:
Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases... in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

(...) The forbidden words are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

Especially arresting is the suggestion that
quote:
Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,”
Any precedents? Any defensible reasons? Romanlion, care to comment?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That is horrid. Echoes of 1984. Here, from the Appendix, is a telling quote

quote:
The particularities of Newspeak make it impossible to translate most older English (oldspeak) texts into the language; the introduction of the Declaration of Independence, for instance, can be translated only into a single word: crimethink.


[ 17. December 2017, 06:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
The banning of these words makes me wonder how long until the burning of science books begins.

As so many have mentioned, every time I think things can't get worse, something like this happens. This is terrifying.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
They won't be burning the Bible, though.

Well, not the King James Authorised Version, of course - all the rest will be consigned to the flames, I daresay.

Gropo the Great's America is becoming almost surreal in its hideousness. You couldn't make it up.

IJ
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can someone put any perspective at all on this?
quote:
Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases... in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

(...) The forbidden words are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

Especially arresting is the suggestion that
quote:
Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,”
Any precedents? Any defensible reasons? Romanlion, care to comment?

Ecclesiastes 1:9
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Which readeth:

Ecclesiastes 1:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

YMMV.

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Romanlion you earlier alleged that a Trump presidency would have no impact on your life. This policy is likely to have a negative effect on public health. Do you still feel unaffected?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Votive] that romanlion's Elf remains good, under the Pussygrabber President's regime...

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Administration policies should all be perfectly fine for you, as long as:

- you don't plan to retire
- you don't ever get sick or disabled
- you can afford your own birth control
- you can, always and into the future, support all your own children, who must naturally never get sick or be disabled. Ditto your aged parents.
- you never lose your job (ideally you do not need to work, having inherited wealth)
- you are white, and ideally male and older.

Easy! Let us not repine, but contemplate these new beatitudes and be grateful we don't have to deal with those old ones any more.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Public health policy can impact your health even if you're otherwise healthy. It's to do with things like disease prevention and the social determinants of health. Worse general public health is bad for the economy, nurtures crime, and impacts society in general.

[ 16. December 2017, 16:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Mr. Obama probably appreciated that, but Pussygrabber? Hah!

IJ
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Isn't he coming over here next year? Perhaps someone could shut him in the Tower and accidentally on purpose lose the key? Trouble is you've got to pay to get in these days! [Two face]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Isn't he coming over here next year? Perhaps someone could shut him in the Tower and accidentally on purpose lose the key? Trouble is you've got to pay to get in these days! [Two face]

I will happily pay if you promise to keep him there.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by ChaliceGirl (# 13656) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Isn't he coming over here next year? Perhaps someone could shut him in the Tower and accidentally on purpose lose the key? Trouble is you've got to pay to get in these days! [Two face]

I will happily pay if you promise to keep him there.
[Big Grin]

[Big Grin] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I have been reading a book on Grant by Ron Chernow and am wading through the history of the presidency of Andrew Johnson In many ways Johnson and Drump are very similar. Both are white nationalist sympathizers, both were out touch with reality. Both have been candidates for impeachment. It would seem to me if Congress flips to Democrat, there will be a very strong movement to impeach Trump. I think there is also grounds to impeach Pence since he lied to the Congress. That would leave the Speaker of the House as next in line. Paul Ryan has hinted very strongly he is retiring, and if Congress goes Democrat, that would mean the likes of Nancy Pelosi could become president by default.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I was thinking on the way home from church...

What if all fifty states decided as one to secede? We could stay right where we are and set up as the New U. S. of A. or some such, and leave T. stranded on a little island of No-Longer-Our-Government. If the whole country secedes, is it really a secession?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Is this a new position?

I'll ignore the coup reference...
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
They're laying the ground-work to fire Mueller during the holiday news lull.

(I'm not sure that Henry II invented the trick where you get rid of the political enemy during Christmas when no one is paying attention, but it's been a solid go-to since at least 1170.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They're laying the ground-work to fire Mueller during the holiday news lull.

The one thing people learn from history ....

.... is that people do not learn from history.

But I suppose Trump is not really "people", is he?

Here is a nice quote from the first link.

quote:
First, Trump has a very strong motive to fire Mueller: He is probably guilty.
Firing Mueller would pretty much confirm that. But it still leaves open whether the present GOP would step up to the plate. Now that's a good question.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
They were set to seat a pedophile in the Senate last week, so extrapolate from there...
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
How can someone get this far?

I can't watch the video. I feel for him.

quote:
However, Senator Kennedy said in an interview on Monday that Mr Trump called him on Saturday and said he did not personally interview Petersen and said his staff had chosen the nominees.

"He has told me, 'Kennedy, when some of my guys send someone who is not qualified, you do your job,'" the senator said.

His staff have a lot to answer for. Doubt this can be pinned on the Groping Orange Menace (or can it? do Presidents often take a hands-on role here?), but surely some basic suitability check would be done.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
If Petersen had any sense of dignity, he would simply have said, "Excuse me, gentlemen, but I'd like to withdraw my name from consideration" and would have left the room.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Very good point. Thank you.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Truman had a sign, 'The Buck Stops Here.' Crooked Don should have seen to it that his staff did its job. We assume here that he cannot do the work himself. To pass the blame to them does not excuse him in the slightest. Can't he take half an hour off from tweeting and groping to do the job he swore to do?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
If Petersen had any sense of dignity, he would simply have said, "Excuse me, gentlemen, but I'd like to withdraw my name from consideration" and would have left the room.

Oh well - at least he's done that retrospectively
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Trump. The Beast's Prophet? This is a declaration of war, sorry defence through the rampant arsenal of nationalist capitalism. Isn't it intriguing that in The Apocalypse it's the environment that fights back?

[ 19. December 2017, 13:53: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Trump-related only, but Crooked Don is presiding over the end of Christianity in this country. White American Christianity is dying of fear.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, not the end of Christianity in toto , but perhaps the end of that pernicious simulacrum* of Christianity purveyed by the right-wing conservatives....

....in which case, no bad thing IMHO.

IJ

*A lovely word. I've been trying to find a use for it all week.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
John Pavlovitz does his voice-crying-in-the-wilderness thing again.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Dear God. What a ghastly vision.

[Mad]

America, rise up! And GET RID OF THESE BASTARDS!

IJ
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Dear God. What a ghastly vision.

[Mad]

America, rise up! And GET RID OF THESE BASTARDS!

IJ

It is ghastly Bishops Finger and a reason I suspect why Dickens wrote 'Christmas Carol' to begin with

Getting rid of them is easier said than done in a democratic country and besides which we've got a few like that ourselves......

I would however recommend a perusal of the Book of Amos which contains naught for their comfort and of course the Magnificat. I'm sure Blessed Mary would also have a thing or three to say about it!!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, I was getting Rather Heated when I posted in such immoderate terms.

As you rightly say, easier said than done.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
300 days. Election day 2018.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Big surprise, but I might as well post that the tax bill passed the house. [Projectile]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Trump-related only, but Crooked Don is presiding over the end of Christianity in this country. White American Christianity is dying of fear.

Superb Brenda. The arc is long, but there is hope. Once all the dross is burned away, real Christianity will shine in the ash.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Not Trump-related, but this is an interesting graph.

(To me at least.)
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Superb Brenda. The arc is long, but there is hope. Once all the dross is burned away, real Christianity will shine in the ash.

I admire your optimism. Wish I had it.

I don't doubt a Glorious Revolution - for some time; but power will get to people's heads, as it always has. Or so thinks cynical me. I think we can but hope for a few faithful witnesses.

Sorry to be a downer.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Big surprise, but I might as well post that the tax bill passed the house. [Projectile]

Yesterday I finally did something I'd never done before -- called one of the Senators from my state (I refuse to call him "my Senator"). Senator Flake was supposedly still undecided yesterday, so I called and spoke with his voicemail. The other Senator from the Great State of Arizona is John McCain, who recuperating from his cancer treatment here in Arizona and won't be there for the vote. (I seriously doubt that he'll be going back to Washington at all.)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No, poor man, I think this is the end for him even though he won't admit it.
And in more local news, my state of Virginia has just flipped the state legislature. After weeks of recounting, it came down to =one= vote!
The Post analysis: "Their victory was confirmed when Democrat Shelly Simonds won a recount Tuesday for a seat in the Virginia House by just one vote. A judicial panel needs to certify the results on Wednesday, but Democrats are claiming victory.
That means Republicans and Democrats will have a rare tie in that chamber — something even the most optimistic Democrats didn't think was possible going into last month's election. Republicans had held the majority in this statehouse for two decades, and before last month, they controlled 66 out of 100 seats. After Tuesday, both sides hold 50 seats."
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I really hope this link works: From Russia with Love.

[Snigger]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
There was talk of not seating the new Democrat senator until after the vote on the tax thing. Is that still the case?

Its no surprise I suppose. McConnell is a master of the dark art of process.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I really hope this link works: From Russia with Love.

Brilliant!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There was talk of not seating the new Democrat senator until after the vote on the tax thing. Is that still the case?

Its no surprise I suppose. McConnell is a master of the dark art of process.

No, he's not going to be seated until January. He will not be there to vote on the tax overhaul.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Sometime back someone commented they could not stand Trump's "manic" gestures. I actually think the better word is "stilted." People who use stilted gestures generally have a sense of arrogance. Anyway, Disney has installed an automitron of the Orange One in its Hall of Presidents. While they used Jon Voight's face for Trump's likeness, they nailed the Orange One's gestures IMHO. See for yourself.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I really hope this link works: From Russia with Love.

[Snigger]

Thanks, Pigwidgeon. AWESOME! May it be so.

I noticed an interesting detail about 13 sec. in, hanging where people often put protective/faith symbols in their cars. *Brenda*, you'll like it!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Superb Brenda. The arc is long, but there is hope. Once all the dross is burned away, real Christianity will shine in the ash.

I admire your optimism. Wish I had it.

I don't doubt a Glorious Revolution - for some time; but power will get to people's heads, as it always has. Or so thinks cynical me. I think we can but hope for a few faithful witnesses.

Sorry to be a downer.

I'm optimistic on an almost geological timescale Ian. We've been on this arc for two hundred thousand years, eighty, fifty at best if we evolved talking late. Halfway. To really better. Fifty thousand years to justice. It will take at least ten for English and Arabic, Christianity and Islam to disappear. No human construct lasts that long.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Naah. We're all doomed. There's a light though (over at the Frankenstein place)..... there's a li-hi-hi-hi-hight (burning in the fireplace)...

Musical theater is the best humanity gets.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A good book to read is The Better Angels of our Nature by Stephen Pinker. He argues that we are provably getting less violent, and he backs it up with data and a jillion graphs. It's the sort of book that you close and pray, "Oh God, let Stephen Pinker be right!"

We must stay strong, and =vote=. Your classic case in point: the Virginia legislature has flipped from red to blue, on ONE single solitary vote. One! So, the moral is, vote. Plan to vote in every election, from now until the angels haul you away. See if, on your deathbed, you can vote absentee. We can't ever again take the political process for granted -- look what happens when we do!

[ 20. December 2017, 15:38: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I really hope this link works: From Russia with Love.

[Snigger]

That looks familiar, but it seems like it's worth a repost.

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Naah. We're all doomed. There's a light though (over at the Frankenstein place)..... there's a li-hi-hi-hi-hight (burning in the fireplace)...

Musical theater is the best humanity gets.

It's just a sweet indictment
With indisputable ties to Russia


If you enjoy musical theater and anti-Trump stuff Randy Rainbow is your man.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must stay strong, and =vote=. Your classic case in point: the Virginia legislature has flipped from red to blue, on ONE single solitary vote. One! So, the moral is, vote. Plan to vote in every election, from now until the angels haul you away. See if, on your deathbed, you can vote absentee. We can't ever again take the political process for granted -- look what happens when we do!

One of the morals is to vote. Democratic candidates won 53% of the collective vote in the 2017 Virginia House of Delegates elections compared to the Republican's 44% and still didn't manage to get outright control of the HoD. The other moral is that structural issues and gerrymandering matter.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Taking a longer view, perhaps Usania will be more sensible next time....

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must stay strong, and =vote=. Your classic case in point: the Virginia legislature has flipped from red to blue, on ONE single solitary vote. One! So, the moral is, vote. Plan to vote in every election, from now until the angels haul you away. See if, on your deathbed, you can vote absentee. We can't ever again take the political process for granted -- look what happens when we do!

One of the morals is to vote. Democratic candidates won 53% of the collective vote in the 2017 Virginia House of Delegates elections compared to the Republican's 44% and still didn't manage to get outright control of the HoD. The other moral is that structural issues and gerrymandering matter.
And the best way to fix the second is to do the first.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I really hope this link works: From Russia with Love.

[Snigger]

That looks familiar, but it seems like it's worth a repost.

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Naah. We're all doomed. There's a light though (over at the Frankenstein place)..... there's a li-hi-hi-hi-hight (burning in the fireplace)...

Musical theater is the best humanity gets.

It's just a sweet indictment
With indisputable ties to Russia


If you enjoy musical theater and anti-Trump stuff Randy Rainbow is your man.

Oh yes, Randy Rainbow is a great satirist with an excellent voice!
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
With your company tax rate set to drop, and your citizens swimming in huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge tax cuts, I expect the typical rent-seekers such as our Business Council to be whinging and whining about our "exorbitant" corporate tax rates.

Corporations truly rule the world.

And how nice that countries in need who don't vote according to how a donating country votes may find their aid cut.

[removed defective link]

[ 21. December 2017, 07:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Andy Borowitz does not fail in our time of need.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING111

In the next few days, the UN General Assembly is about to take a vote condemning the US for deciding to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem.

Niki Haley and the President are now taking names as to who votes against them.

Do not be intimidated by these bullies. The world needs to stand up to them.

That is call,

Carry on.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I would have thought the French can be relied on to vote against the US. As I mentioned on the other thread, a significant plank of their foreign policy can be summed up as Don’t Piss Off the Arabs™. As per the Iraq war, they have form on deciding that pissing off the Americans is going to be less costly for them.

Also Manu Macron* seems to quite enjoy poking Trump in the eye. Witness his “make our planet great again” campaign, which has got a mixed reception at home. (Essentially he is handing out a very significant amount of money in research grants for American climate change scientists. Some people want to know why he’s not funding French/European science.) This sits alongside inviting El Presidente to Paris in full state pomp in what looks to me like a game of nice cop, nasty cop. AFAICT, the take-home message is “you don’t scare me”.

*Incidentally, whose birthday it is today. Many happy returns, Monsieur le Président.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I find it refreshingly subversive, somehow, to think that the leader of a major European country (i.e. la belle France ) might enjoy taking a rise out of a humourless goblin like Gropo the Great. Pity the orcs 'in charge' of Ukland can't do the same.

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Andy Borowitz does not fail in our time of need.

Borowitz left out . . .

"Believe me!"

"I've just told a huuugely obvious whopper."
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Niki Haley and the President are now taking names as to who votes against them.

"Taking names"? I was under the impression that these votes were on the record. It isn't a secret ballot. Somebody really should tell Comrade Trump that he doesn't have to waste time and energy taking down names--just read the results.

Oh. Wait. It is the "read" part that is troubling him, isn't it. My mistake. Go ahead. Take down names.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Whatever shortfall in aid he creates we should all (all other countries) make up immediately.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Whatever shortfall in aid he creates we should all (all other countries) make up immediately.

That would be consistent with a lot of Trump's foreign policy: reducing America's influence in the world. Pulling out of the Trans Pacific Partnership weakened US influence in Asia. Pulling out of the Climate Accord weakened US influence on climate matters worldwide. Reducing aid to other countries on this ridiculous pretext will open the door for China and Russia to increase their aid and influence in other countries, all at the expense of the US.

In other words, Comrade Trump has been acting just as his controllers in Russia want him to do. He is a good and obedient flunkie.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Has America’s influence in the world been such a good thing? 🤔
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I wouldn;t say that he's doing what Russia tells him to, I'd interpret everything about him and his behaviour before after election is that he's a bully, and engages in bully tactics all the time. He isn't shy about it either, he brags about being a bully.

He seems to be in league with Russia because Putin is also a bully. It may be that Russia has something on him, but its being a bully that's the main issue. Like Nixon before him, even when he gets taken down, he won't admit to anything, any flaws, everyone else will be blamed. We can only hope fewer rather than more people are killed along the way.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
So the UN vote is in: 128 nations approved, 9 opposed, 35 abstained and 21 decided that discretion was the better part of valor and did not show up at all.

Those voting on the side of the US in opposing the resolution:
quote:
The nine who voted against the resolution were the US, Israel, Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo
Otherwise known as the new "Coalition of the Willing."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Looking forward to the inevitable Twitter tantrum.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
A fair proportion of US aid to countries like Egypt is military stuff, would be my guess.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Which isn't going to go over well with the US defense contractors due to profit handsomely from running up those goods . . .
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
yup. I haven't researched my assertion, but neither has Trump.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Samantha Bee interviews A.R. Bernard, the one pastor who had the guts to leave Trump's evangelical council.

Bernard has an interesting alternative OT take on Trump: rather than Cyrus, he's Saul.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
And, now it is announced that Nikki Hailey is inviting the nations who voted with the United States to an exclusive year-end party, all others are left out.

Talk about a Mean Girl attitude.

And don't get me started about the sham cabinet meeting where Uncle Ben said "grace" and Cousin Mike sang praises to the Dear Leader, and nothing else was said. And the DL just took it all in with a scowl on his face and his arms folded close to his chest.

Oh, and there were all those congressmen who showed up at the White House and essentially did the same thing--even those who have been very critical of the DL were singing praises to him.

I wonder why the change in tone. Because they got such large tax cuts? Or because some of them are angling for the Secretary of State job?

Pathetic. I cannot wait until November 2018.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Singing praises to the orange orangutan?

Their jobs depend on it.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

Oh, and there were all those congressmen who showed up at the White House and essentially did the same thing--even those who have been very critical of the DL were singing praises to him.

I wonder why the change in tone.

mene mene tekel upharsin...
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
With your company tax rate set to drop, and your citizens swimming in huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge tax cuts, I expect the typical rent-seekers such as our Business Council to be whinging and whining about our "exorbitant" corporate tax rates.


Prescient...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Since you've popped in....
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Since you've popped in....

Seems like that narrative has changed in the intervening period.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Not a lot, romanlion. Even if the motivation was "Don't wave a red rag at a bull" if you want to look after projects, the only issue is whether the CDC officials were right to spot the red rags in advance.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not a lot, romanlion. Even if the motivation was "Don't wave a red rag at a bull" if you want to look after projects, the only issue is whether the CDC officials were right to spot the red rags in advance.

Quite a lot actually.

Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases

is a far cry from:

anonymous sources at the Department of Health and Human Services told the National Review’s Yuval Levin this week that any language changes did not originate with political appointees, but instead came from career CDC officials who were strategizing...

It makes utter bullshit of the original story.

This kind of thing happens with regularity it seems.

So if there is any "threat" to public health from the restriction on language it would appear to come not from Trump, but from within the CDC itself. Kind of turns the whole implication of the Bangor Daily piece inside out.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Any wording in a scientific institution that steps away from "evidence-based" is bad. Any administration that doesn't recognise and take steps to avoid that is complicit. I don't notice concern on the part of the Trump administration about this manipulative wording, whoever is authoring it, in a government department devoted to public health; the administration appears utterly self-absorbed. That will ultimately affect you.

Your move.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Any wording in a scientific institution that steps away from "evidence-based" is bad. Any administration that doesn't recognise and take steps to avoid that is complicit. I don't notice concern on the part of the Trump administration about this manipulative wording, whoever is authoring it, in a government department devoted to public health; the administration appears utterly self-absorbed. That will ultimately affect you.

Your move.

Let me make sure I understand...

Originally you were all spun up that the Trump administration was banning words and that was bad for my health. Now it has been pointed out that there is no "ban" on any words, just self censorship as "an attempt by bureaucrats to save their favorite projects from unforgiving budget cuts."

And now I should be mad that Trump doesn't what, demand they put those words back in their budget narratives?!

[Killing me]

CDC is bad for my health, I get it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Frank Herbert said it best, romanlion.

"If you put away from you those who tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflection" (From the Dune sagas).
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Frank Herbert said it best, romanlion.

"If you put away from you those who tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflection" (From the Dune sagas).

Thanks B, your fish have been few but meaty!
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
This is a very funny and telling test-drive of Trump's diet. It reminds me of Brillat-Savarin: Tell me what you eat and I'll tell you what you are.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Singing praises to the orange orangutan? Their jobs depend on it.

It is being reported that shortly after OO singed his tax bill some of his staff sat down with him and had a come to Jesus moment with him. They were rather blunt in their discussions with him, telling him he is likely going to lose Congress in the upcoming elections. And that is the point, the Congress' jobs do not depend on OO, but on the will of the people. It is going to be a very rough year for the Republican Party. And 2019 will be a very rough year for OO if he does not shoot himself in the foot first by firing Mueller or starting a war with the Peoples Republic of North Korea.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
It is being reported that shortly after OO singed his tax bill...

Got it a little too close to the Christmas candles, did he?
[Razz]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Singing praises to the orange orangutan? Their jobs depend on it.

It is being reported that shortly after OO singed his tax bill some of his staff sat down with him and had a come to Jesus moment with him. They were rather blunt in their discussions with him, telling him he is likely going to lose Congress in the upcoming elections. And that is the point, the Congress' jobs do not depend on OO, but on the will of the people. It is going to be a very rough year for the Republican Party. And 2019 will be a very rough year for OO if he does not shoot himself in the foot first by firing Mueller or starting a war with the Peoples Republic of North Korea.

Unfortunately the current GOP Congresspeople seem to have turned that deficit to an advantage. Having given up on reelection they are freed from the onerous burden of pretending to care two figs about their constituents. They can plunder the poor, rob dying children of health care, in order to give their Goldman-Sachs overlords whatever they desire, secure in the knowledge the money guys will provide them with cushy post-Congressional Employment. I find them even more terrifying now that they've clearly given up on reelection
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Yes, career politicians, left or right, always have their friends in business to turn to when their constituents decide their time is up. But this lot of Republicans seem particularly horrid, and their don't-give-a-damn meters are turned to 11.

Samantha Bee was interviewing the pastor who left that (un)holy alliance of religious leaders Trump had after Trump's do-nothing response to the white extremists. He held out hope we would see how rotten the state of politics is. I worry it can go lower...or the damage done in the meantime. And how much a Democrat would be able to repeal...
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Oh it can definitely get worse, but I don't think it will. I saw on my facebook feed that Gov. Brown in California was pardoning people who would otherwise be deported. I didn't read the story, but that seemed to me a good thing, and one that shows how many ways there are to skin a political cat in the USA.

On a related tangent, SBS are showing the Ken Burns docco on the Vietnam War on Saturday nights. Last night they showed the footage of John McCain getting interviewed in a Nth Vietnamese hospital after he got his broken bones set without any painkillers. You could see the pain and fear in his eyes and in his voice. The man was expecting to die. I was so incensed, yet again, that McCain's service, hard bloody service, was attacked by the coward Donald Trump. It wasn't just his service. It was the service of every Allied POW in Vietnam and in other wars. I was spitting chips. It took me half an hour to calm down.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Last night they showed the footage of John McCain getting interviewed in a Nth Vietnamese hospital after he got his broken bones set without any painkillers. You could see the pain and fear in his eyes and in his voice. The man was expecting to die.

If he had, his principles wouldn't have been so debatable as they are now.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
romanlion--

Such a cheery comment. 'Tis the season. May you be visited by the 3 Christmas ghosts.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
simontoad--

AIUI, McCain could've left earlier, but chose to stay with his comrades.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
romanlion

I'll bite. Which of John McCain's principles, as perceived by you, do you think are debatable.

[ 24. December 2017, 12:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
romanlion

I'll bite. Which of John McCain's principles, as perceived by you, do you think are debatable.

As perceived by me? In that context he doesn't have any, except war.

Can't say he hasn't been consistent on that one.

He is the embodiment of everything wrong with the DC political establishment. Cynical, self-serving, duplicitous...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Oh I see.

quote:
He is the embodiment of everything wrong with the DC political establishment. Cynical, self-serving, duplicitous...
.

That's your perception. Do you see anything meritorious at all in his character? Any examples of good behaviour, good actions, which might be worth following?

Or in your perception is he just totally without merit? I just wonder what standards you are applying and whether you apply them to yourself in judging human merit.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Last night they showed the footage of John McCain getting interviewed in a Nth Vietnamese hospital after he got his broken bones set without any painkillers. You could see the pain and fear in his eyes and in his voice. The man was expecting to die.

If he had, his principles wouldn't have been so debatable as they are now.
What debatable principles again? Within the debatable principles of your metanarrative? What are they by the way? Oh Principled Man? Your demonstrable principles? You know, the things you do when no one's watching? The principles God knows you for?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Oh I see.

quote:
He is the embodiment of everything wrong with the DC political establishment. Cynical, self-serving, duplicitous...
.

That's your perception. Do you see anything meritorious at all in his character? Any examples of good behaviour, good actions, which might be worth following?

Or in your perception is he just totally without merit? I just wonder what standards you are applying and whether you apply them to yourself in judging human merit.

I make no judgement about his human merit. I don't know him.

As a Senator I think he is pretty useless.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Did anyone watch "Meet the Press," this morning? They had a montage of Trump's first year starting with his lie about how many people turned out for his inauguration and Kelly Anne's defense inaugurating the phrase, "Alternative facts."

It included an interview with John McCain just after Trump said the news could not be trusted. The MTP anchorman asked Mc Cain if he believed it was important to the country to have a free and trustworthy press and he said yes he thought it was vital to the country. McCain then added, "And I say that even though I absolutely hate the press and hate you most of all."

I used to dislike McCain but these days I believe that, as he sees the end of his life approaching, he has become wonderfully, refreshingly honest.

The show was depressing, terrifying and funny.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
he has become wonderfully, refreshingly honest.

If only they all would.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
For the love of God.

That man puts the capital T in tacky.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
For the love of God.

That man puts the capital T in tacky.

Is someone gonna say it?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Better spell it out for me. My brain is simple at the best of times, and now I'm on holidays it's switched off. Clearly.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Over on Dictionary.com's twitter page the word of the day a couple days ago was 'sycophant.' It was illustrated by a photo of Mike Pece, currently famed for praising Crooked Don once every 12 second for three entire minutes of speechifying.

[ 24. December 2017, 23:55: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Hearing that 3 ghosts are being encouraged to visit the American Orange Scrooge in Florida tonight but the gooey puffball is accusing the ghost of Christmas past of false news so the other two ghosts are still waiting.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
The problem with sticking to your principles in politics is that nothing gets done. Politics is truly the art of compromise. John McCain has a history of getting stuff done, and stopping stuff that shouldn't get done.

If you don't condemn Trump's attacks on his war record, you are not a patriotic American.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
As regards the Three Ghosts, I hope that the Ghost of Christmas Present does eventually get a word in edgeways about all the misery The Great Orange Goblin is causing...

...as regards the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, I suspect that he'll be redundant, coz The GOG, the End-Times 'Christians' of Great Usania, Little Vlad, and Kim Wrong-Trim, between them will probably ensure that next Christmas never happens.

Hah! Bumhug!

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
For the love of God.

That man puts the capital T in tacky.

Is someone gonna say it?
Merry Christmas, Ian

"tacky" doesn't have a capital "T" unless it's "Tacky".

There, I've said it. And await correction ...
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Oh I see.

quote:
He is the embodiment of everything wrong with the DC political establishment. Cynical, self-serving, duplicitous...
.

That's your perception. Do you see anything meritorious at all in his character? Any examples of good behaviour, good actions, which might be worth following?

Or in your perception is he just totally without merit? I just wonder what standards you are applying and whether you apply them to yourself in judging human merit.

I make no judgement about his human merit. I don't know him.

As a Senator I think he is pretty useless.

That's a shame. He speaks very highly of you.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal] Thanks Barnabas62. And Merry Christmas to you too.

I'll blame my tiny phone. And too much Christmas punch.

[ 25. December 2017, 19:48: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
...except "putting a capital (letter) in (word)" is a known phrase--here, at least.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...except "putting a capital (letter) in (word)" is a known phrase--here, at least.

And particularly apt here since Donald is fond of blazening every property he owns with enormous, tacky, gold capital Ts
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Recently, Trump bemoaned the Republicans’ loss in a special election in Alabama and in part blamed Sessions, whose departure from the Senate to head to Justice necessitated the election.
The passive voice used by the AP obscures the fundamental ridiculousness of Trump's complaint about there being a special election in Alabama this year. No one forced Donald Trump to appoint Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III attorney general.

To quote blogger Erik Loomis, Presidents should never name sitting office holders to appointed positions.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
When McCain was standing for president, I had several issues with him: his history and his positions, but there was the time when a lady stood up and practically accused Obama of being a Muslim and McCain cut her off. He defended Obama as being an honest man who he happened to disagree with.

Would that our name caller in chief showed such integrity.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I'm hearing, mainly because I watch The Young Turks on YouTube, about the Justice Democrats, an organisation formed I believe by one if TYT's founders.

Are they too left to do any good?

Is splitting the Democrat vote wise? Even if it is just for a candidate? Do you risk alienating more progressive voters if the traditional candidate gets up? Or is the fact Trump is in meaning it is more likely people will get out to smash the Republicans?

Any other concerns?

Thanks.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
The Judean People's Front response is apposite here. When the dems have been in power for half a century you can split into factions. While the right is playing footsies with the Nazi Party it is time to hang together.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I'm hearing, mainly because I watch The Young Turks on YouTube, about the Justice Democrats, an organisation formed I believe by one if TYT's founders.

Are they too left to do any good?

Is splitting the Democrat vote wise?

Never heard of them before you mentioned them, but their Wiki page indicates that they're a PAC, not a rival political party. Their ostensible tactic seems to be backing more leftish Democratic candidates in primaries rather than running competing candidates in general elections. Given that, I don't think their activities, if the Wiki description is accurate, count as "splitting the Democrat[ic] vote". You can debate the advisability of giving up the advantages of incumbency, but it's not vote splitting.

In other news Trump has apparently given a long, rambling, semi-coherent interview to the New York Times*. For those who don't want to (or can't) read the Times excerpts, Joy Ann Reid summarizes it on Twitter. And from the Twitter feed of Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post we get this:

quote:
Asked fairly senior Trump adviser for thoughts on NYT interview a few minutes ago. Person responded: "What interview? Today?"
Which might explain why Trump was giving an interview without advisors or legal counsel present.


--------------------
*The New York Times has a paywall limiting non-subscribers to viewing ten NYT articles per calendar month. Only click through if you're a Times subscriber or are willing to use one of your ten monthly Times passes to read Trump sundowning.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Seems the entire HIV/AIDS advisory council has just been sacked, according to the WaPo. (Some members had already resigned earlier in protest against the cuts in healthcare.)
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks Crœsos and simontoad.

So the information came from our High Commissioner. Interesting.

[ 31. December 2017, 05:20: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Not just Downer though... but yeah, funny. Downer was a noted party boy in his youth.

I like the last bit from Drumpf in that NYT transcript. "You have to re-elect me, because if you don't you won't have Donald J. Trump to kick around anymore and you'll all go broke." I'm paraphrasing. You could drive a truck through most of what he says, but either the bastard doesn't know, or doesn't care. I suspect the latter, dammit.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Crooked Don is of course just a major (Yuge!) symptom, of course. But he;s certainly precipitated a major crisis in Christianity. This should be a free click.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
In cabinet papers released this morning it was revealed that PM Keating did not want a directly elected President because the people might elect someone inappropriate. As it happened, the proposal to become a republic went down in a screaming heap, but how right Keating was. If only the US Founding Fathers had such foresight, although to be fair to them they were entering a brave new world.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
In cabinet papers released this morning it was revealed that PM Keating did not want a directly elected President because the people might elect someone inappropriate. As it happened, the proposal to become a republic went down in a screaming heap, but how right Keating was. If only the US Founding Fathers had such foresight, although to be fair to them they were entering a brave new world.

We don't have a direct election for President...
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
We don't have a direct election for President...

But how I wish that we did!
[Frown]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
We don't have a direct election for President...

But how I wish that we did!
[Frown]

And had that brainless toad in 2000?! God knows where we would be now.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
We don't have a direct election for President...

But how I wish that we did!
[Frown]

I mostly agree with Pigwidgeon. I'm still not sure about ditching the Electoral College. It did give us Lincoln. And we don't generally like to mess too much with the work of the Founding Guys. (E.g., we've had something like 25 amendments to the Constitution in more than 200 years.)

OTOH, based on the 2016 popular vote, Hillary would be in the Oval Office, and T would be looking for a new TV series.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
sorry, I meant directly elected as opposed to appointed by the Parliament.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
We don't have a direct election for President...

But how I wish that we did!
[Frown]

And had that brainless toad in 2000?! God knows where we would be now.
No, no -- we DID get the brainless toad in 2000, thanks to the Supreme Court.

[Mad]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
The Electoral College was intended to give smaller states a larger-than-proportional voice in the choice of president and vice-president.* If one thinks that this is important, then the structure works. If one doesn't believe this to be relevant, then the US might wish to change it.

Currently, with Republican majorities in the smaller central and prairie states, the situation favours Republican candidates. But for many years, many smaller states preferred Democratic candidates. There's a paper on this around which I would love to provide links, but the laser light show is about to begin at the stroke of midnight here!

*Its other purpose, of magnifying the political power of slave states, is no longer relevant.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
As a citizen residing in the most populous state in the union, I'm perpetually angry that our votes here count less than those of people in every other state.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
We don't have a direct election for President...

But how I wish that we did!
[Frown]

And had that brainless toad in 2000?! God knows where we would be now.
No Iraq war?

A more advanced engagement with climate change?

Just a couple of examples.

Now they don't sound too bad, do they.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[qb] We don't have a direct election for President...

But how I wish that we did!
[Frown]

And had that brainless toad in 2000?! God knows where we would be now.
No Iraq war?

A more advanced engagement with climate change?

Just a couple of examples.

Now they don't sound too bad, do they.

So you would trade PEPFAR for both of those?


[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
That assumes a different President wouldn't have created something similar to PEPFAR.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Weird assumption, isn't it?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
No more weird than yours.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
And had that brainless toad in 2000?! God knows where we would be now.

I'm pretty sure that any argument that postulates the superior intelligence of George W. Bush is prima facie an absurd argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I mostly agree with Pigwidgeon. I'm still not sure about ditching the Electoral College. It did give us Lincoln.

Not really. Although he didn't have an outright majority in 1860 Lincoln was still the top vote getter, having a third again as many votes as his nearest rival. Any system predicated on awarding the presidency to whoever won the most votes would have installed Lincoln in the White House.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And we don't generally like to mess too much with the work of the Founding Guys. (E.g., we've had something like 25 amendments to the Constitution in more than 200 years.)

It should be noted that the work of "the Founding Guys" has already been messed with as far as the Electoral College goes.

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The Electoral College was intended to give smaller states a larger-than-proportional voice in the choice of president and vice-president.* If one thinks that this is important, then the structure works. If one doesn't believe this to be relevant, then the US might wish to change it.

Not at all. The Electoral College was intended to be a political compromise palatable to enough factions at the Constitutional Convention. It was the first choice of very few delegates and was only agreed to fairly late in the Convention after being hammered out in the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters. As the name implies this Committee dealt mostly with things where the Founders had strong disagreements rather than definite intentions. It's more accurate to say that the effect of the Electoral College is to amplify the power of smaller states and slave-intensive states in selecting the American president, rather than to attribute these effects to deliberate intention. Any intention by the Committee of Eleven went no further than getting enough support from the Convention to pass controversial issues.

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
No Iraq war?

A more advanced engagement with climate change?

Just a couple of examples.

Now they don't sound too bad, do they.

So you would trade PEPFAR for both of those?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That assumes a different President wouldn't have created something similar to PEPFAR.

There may be some credibility to that assumption. Given that Al Gore publicly criticized the rush to invade Iraq prior to the outbreak of war it seems a pretty good assumption that he wouldn't have engaged in the widespread campaign of deception and lies that seems to have been necessary to sell the idea of the Iraq War to anyone outside PNAC. The idea that a President Gore would not have engaged with climate change seems even more dubious. On the other hand PEPFAR is the kind of program Democrats are typically supportive of. Most Democratic criticisms of the program focus on its perceived inefficiency that come from exporting American culture war issues (abstinence education, refusal to run or fund needle exchanges, etc.)

That said, PEPFAR is also the kind of programs Republican politicians typically hate when proposed by Democratic politicians. For comparison, see the Democratic vs. Republican responses to John Roberts inept re-writing of the Affordable Care Act to make the Medicaid expansion optional for states. I can see the politics of spite preventing a Democratic president from passing something like PEPFAR. romanlion's contention that the only decent response to this kind of legislative hostage-taking is to kill a bunch of Iraqis for no good reason and leave the Sixth Extinction unaddressed seems kind of dubious though.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Thanks for giving some context to Romanlion's remarks Croessus, inter alia.

I think I'll do another thread on Australia's Republican push in a month or so. There has been a development yesterday, although that might prove to be a mirage. It will be interesting, as we will be going through all these debates again. My preference is to avoid an office of President becoming a competing locus of power. I prefer the executive power to come from the Parliament, and the Head of State to be a figurehead.

I had a terrible dream the other day. I won't go through all the rabbit holes, but at one stage I was a corporate Lawyer in America, and I had to step in at the last minute on a pitch for government work. Trump was at the meeting, and asked all sorts of questions. Then I found myself alone in a very confined space with Trump, and I told him all my vicarious military stories about the people I stayed with as a 16 year old. Trump was impressed, and as he left the very confined space, he said something that indicated that he wanted me on his team. I was incredibly conflicted by this, as on the one hand it would be an express route to the golden ticket that is partnership in a large commercial law firm, and on the other, I hate and despise Trump. I woke up very stressed.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Thanks Crœsos; very helpful.

Trump's start to the year.

When this nightmare is over, assuming the Democrats get in with a majority, how easy is it to rollback (or dare I dream, rollback and go further than they did before to help those in need?) the changes this administration is making? I know they haven't got a lot through number-wise, but the tax changes will have a huge impact, especially years down the track. Can the rot be stopped?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
@Croesus. Perhaps we are using the word intended differently. I was not really focussing on what a Convention committee was trying to achieve politically, but rather on the objective intent of the electoral college provisions-- after all, pretty well most provisions of the US Constitution come from a political compromise.

Some writers say that the only real intent was to strengthen the voice of slave states (George Edwards, Winant professor of American government at Oxford) and others ascribe the mechanism as a way of addressing the mistrust many of the new states had of each other. It was never designed to work with political parties and assumed that nobody would campaign nationally, which has made it a possibly vestigial organ.

But perhaps we are just quibbling about terminology.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
No more weird than yours.

Read Croesos. You're way ahead on the weird stakes, on the basis of evidence, rather than unsupported assertions.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
When this nightmare is over, assuming the Democrats get in with a majority, how easy is it to rollback (or dare I dream, rollback and go further than they did before to help those in need?) the changes this administration is making? I know they haven't got a lot through number-wise, but the tax changes will have a huge impact, especially years down the track. Can the rot be stopped?

Scott Lemieux takes a swing at that question in an LA Times opinion piece. The short version is that things like the recent tax bill can, and likely will, be undone fairly easily by the next Democratic government. Where the real damage is occurring is in Trump's appointments to the federal judiciary and the things he's accomplishing through regulatory rollbacks. Pollution dumped under Scott Pruitt's EPA can't be repealed from the environment by a Democratic Congress and families broken up by Trump's ethnic cleansing immigration policies will never get those years apart back.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps El Gropo Supremo will crash in flames before too much damage is done (though damage enough has been done already)?

One can but hope.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
After a full year of him you would think all the analyses have been written. But this one from the POST is interesting, arguing that Crooked Don's notable cruelty is actually a sign of his weakness.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
In cabinet papers released this morning it was revealed that PM Keating did not want a directly elected President because the people might elect someone inappropriate. As it happened, the proposal to become a republic went down in a screaming heap, but how right Keating was. If only the US Founding Fathers had such foresight, although to be fair to them they were entering a brave new world.

We don't have a direct election for President...
No, but the results are almost always the same as if you did. (Though this particular POTUS is one of the exceptions, so not an example that proves Keating's point.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
In cabinet papers released this morning it was revealed that PM Keating did not want a directly elected President because the people might elect someone inappropriate. As it happened, the proposal to become a republic went down in a screaming heap, but how right Keating was. If only the US Founding Fathers had such foresight, although to be fair to them they were entering a brave new world.

We don't have a direct election for President...
No, but the results are almost always the same as if you did.
60% this century. Guess we're on a lucky streak, considering...
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
He did it. He actually did it:

quote:
Trump to North Korean leader Kim: My ‘Nuclear Button’ is ‘much bigger & more powerful’
WTF?!?!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Oh well, that's the chances of peace in Israel/Palestine completely scorched then.

Palestinians have been saying for years that Israel and allies are not serious about the two-state solution and the negotiations necessary to set up a functioning Palestinian state, and now Trump has ripped off the plaster to show it is true.

My guess is now that the Palestinian Authority will fold, the UNWRA (UN refugee agency) will be plunged into an impossible economic hole and many Palestinians will be forced into a fresh hell. Israel will be forced to take complete military and civil control of the West Bank causing.. who knows what. 2018 is going to be very difficult.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Two minutes to midnight. Lord have mercy.

With Kim and Trump vying for the "most unstable leader" title this could actually be the first year in which nuclear weapons are used in anger since Nagasaki.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It does feel rather as if Trump is deliberately trying to upset situations where there is an uneasy truce (Israel/Palestine, Pakistan, N Korea) to tip them into actual war. Quite what good he thinks will result, I cannot compute.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
If he gets involved in a war it is unlikely that he will be removed from power
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh well, that's the chances of peace in Israel/Palestine completely scorched then.

Palestinians have been saying for years that Israel and allies are not serious about the two-state solution and the negotiations necessary to set up a functioning Palestinian state, and now Trump has ripped off the plaster to show it is true.

My guess is now that the Palestinian Authority will fold, the UNWRA (UN refugee agency) will be plunged into an impossible economic hole and many Palestinians will be forced into a fresh hell. Israel will be forced to take complete military and civil control of the West Bank causing....

...much creaming of underpants amongst the bottom half of US evangelicalism?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If he gets involved in a war it is unlikely that he will be removed from power

Indeed. Wars - especially ones taking place a long way away and/or against people who are very different to us - almost always lead to an increase in popularity for the leader of the country. Bush in Iraq and Thatcher in the Falklands being two good examples.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
And rumours of wars. Business as usual.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[...] With Kim and Trump vying for the "most unstable leader" title this could actually be the first year in which nuclear weapons are used in anger since Nagasaki.

Anger? Now? I don't think so. Needless stupidity, mindless arrogance, more likely.

The situation in August 1945 was very much different. And if anything, it helped finish the war, even at the terrible cost we know. Imitators beware!

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[...] Lord have mercy. [...]

Amen. [Votive]

[ 03. January 2018, 12:39: Message edited by: Wesley J ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It does feel rather as if Trump is deliberately trying to upset situations where there is an uneasy truce (Israel/Palestine, Pakistan, N Korea) to tip them into actual war. Quite what good he thinks will result, I cannot compute.

He thinks "And then they will all buy weapons from American companies, resulting in PROFIT$ and increased jobs in the USA. And I can use their need for our guns to leverage trade deals for even more U.S. PROFIT$ and I will be hailed the Greatest American President because of all the PROFIT$ I have made for companies (especially with tax breaks and all). And, yeah, so all these glorious PROFIT$ are at the expense of death and misery and destruction, but that is a small price to pay for PROFIT$. Besides, all that destruction will eventually lead to rebuilding, meaning More Jobs! I'll be hailed as the Savior of the World Economy because of all the PROFIT$ I have made possible!"
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No, no - there are too many Long Words in there...the Great Genitalia Grabber couldn't manage anything so coherent.

And, in any case, PROFIT$ would be of little use in the nuclear winter caused by what the two Big Button-holding infantile tyrants have on their respective tables.

God help us. You really could not make it up.

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Two minutes to midnight. Lord have mercy.

With Kim and Trump vying for the "most unstable leader" title this could actually be the first year in which nuclear weapons are used in anger since Nagasaki.

No it couldn't.

And spot on Hedgehog. He's right of course. The most dangerous nuclear weapons are Pakistan's of course. Now he's pulled the plug.

[ 03. January 2018, 13:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think the USA is playing 'there is a maniac in the White House'.

Nixon and Kissinger played that game with the Chinese in the late 60s. With some success. The only real difference is that this time there really is a maniac in the White House. But his red button simply takes him to a PS4 virtual reality. Not too many people know that yet, the game wouldn't work if they did.

Keep calm folks.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I wish a White House electrician could slip into the Oval Office and re-wire his bigliest nuclear button so that, like the famous button on his desk, all it would do is have a minion bring him another Diet Coke.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the USA is playing 'there is a maniac in the White House'.

Nixon and Kissinger played that game with the Chinese in the late 60s. With some success. The only real difference is that this time there really is a maniac in the White House.

There's another big difference. The goal of the Nixon maniac gambit was to decrease uncertainty in international relations. It's sort of the equivalent of throwing your steering wheel out the window in a game of chicken. Yes, the consequences are dire if the other guy doesn't swerve, but a point of uncertainty is eliminated from the system. (i.e. Nixon is crazy enough to follow through on his saber-rattling, so caution is warranted.) Trump's maniac gambit (if it is a gambit) seems geared towards increasing uncertainty in America's foreign relations. (i.e. Trump seems randomly pissy, so now we have to guess what he's being pissy about.)
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
The New York Times (that will cost you one of your monthly clicks- you could probably find the same information about the nuclear strike process for free elsewhere) has helpfully explained that there is no "button" on the President's desk, and that it is highly unlikely that Kim has one on his desk- a North Korean strike would probably take days to initiate.

(Tomorrow's NYT pay through link- "Oh, you mean the Creature. Frankenstein is the inventor, and it's up to you to decide who the 'Monster' is...")

And no mention of the MOST DISHONEST AND CORRUPT MEDIA AWARDS OF THE YEAR? Terrifying assault on the press aside, this is high comedy. Not only the terrible phrasing (so are the awards or the media the most dishonest and corrupt?). This sounds like the kind of lame stunt that the college Republicans pull once a semester to try to remind everyone that they are the actual campus counter-culture. My money says it was actually Hope Hicks or Sarah Huckabee-Sanders who came up with this one, and that their interns will be working this week to get the tweets ready. The POTUS, of course, will be happy to take credit for it.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
He did it. He actually did it:

quote:
Trump to North Korean leader Kim: My ‘Nuclear Button’ is ‘much bigger & more powerful’
WTF?!?!
with Trump it's always about "mine's bigger".
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The New York Times (that will cost you one of your monthly clicks- you could probably find the same information about the nuclear strike process for free elsewhere) has helpfully explained that there is no "button" on the President's desk, and that it is highly unlikely that Kim has one on his desk- a North Korean strike would probably take days to initiate.

I think KJU was basing his warning on one-too-many readings of Cold War-era political cartoons, where "the button" was always shown as being on the desk of the president or General Secretary
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No, no - there are too many Long Words in there...the Great Genitalia Grabber couldn't manage anything so coherent.

And, in any case, PROFIT$ would be of little use in the nuclear winter caused by what the two Big Button-holding infantile tyrants have on their respective tables.

Agree with the first part, the 2nd part is eliminated for the same reason-- nothing is clearer that Trump-- and indeed pretty much the entire GOP Congressional delegation-- don't think in terms of long game. They're all about the 80s junk bond quick fix. The tax bill, the rolling back of environmental protections-- pretty much every thing in their arsenal shows they aren't particularly worried about the sort of country, much less world, their kids and grandkids will inherit. It's all about the next score.

My take on the "mine's bigger" comment is-- first of all, yes, as HRC noted, Trump is constantly baitable, especially on Twitter, so tweeting "I've got a big big button" is BEGGING for that precise response.

But more interestingly, we had earlier in the day gotten hints that South and North Korea might be moving toward talks-- dare we even hope some sort of detente/peace treaty? Without the US. Without Trump. A potentially monumental event, a Nobel peace prize in the making (and you KNOW he's gotta get one of those-- he's already month's behind Obama on that count!). And they totally cut him out of the deal. Unacceptable. So gotta engage in a bit of pot stirring to guarantee he gets a seat at the table-- and the photo op.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Perhaps I'm whistling past the graveyard, but, I believe that were Trump to be seriously close to initiating a preemptive launch against the DPRK, there would be a praetorian action. I suspect that there is already a Kissinger/Schlesinger arrangement, though I doubt that Tillerson is part of it. Kelly/Mattis would be my guess.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
There's speculation that Trump's recent tweetstorm, which included but was not limited to his nuclear dick-measuring contest, may have been set off by something happening with the Mueller investigation. There are complaints that Robert Mueller's grand jury has too many black people on it according to "one witness who recently testified before the panel" (i.e. a Trump associate) as reported in the (Rupert Murdoch owned) New York Post.

quote:
“The grand jury room looks like a Bernie Sanders rally,” my source said. “Maybe they found these jurors in central casting, or at a Black Lives Matter rally in Berkeley [Calif.]”

Of the 20 jurors, 11 are African-Americans and two were wearing “peace T-shirts,” the witness said. “There was only one white male in the room, and he was a prosecutor.” Mueller was not present.


<snip>

My source said, “That room isn’t a room where POTUS gets a fair shake.”

Which seems a bit confused because a Bernie Sanders rally and a Black Lives Matter rally would draw fairly different crowds. Sanders' biggest obstacle in the Democratic primaries was his inability to appeal to African-American voters. It's interesting that no one else is willing to go along with Trump's conceit that the Mueller probe isn't investigating him personally.

Illustrating how what James Carville referred to as "the puke funnel" works, the story then jumps to Brian Kilmeade over at the (Rupert Murdoch owned) Fox News Channel, where Kilmeade seems to find it inconceivable that a grand jury convened in Washington, DC (~48% African-American according to census data) would have (allegedly) 11 African-American jurors out of 20 total jurors.

They're not even trying to be subtle about this anymore.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From your keyboard to God's computer screen.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
In another who'd-have-predicted-that move, it appears that the WH is downplaying the involvement of Steve Bannon in Trump's team before and after the election. As of nobody was looking..

In unrelated news, it is said that a soon-to-be-published book will include some explosive quotes from Bannon about Trump.

I do hope this feud continues.

[ 03. January 2018, 18:21: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In unrelated news, it is said that a soon-to-be-published book will include some explosive quotes from Bannon about Trump.

Maybe it's unrelated, maybe not. For those who are interested New York magazine has a condensed excerpt from the book, as prepared and condensed by author Michael Wolff. A sample:

quote:
Not only did Trump disregard the potential conflicts of his own business deals and real-estate holdings, he audaciously refused to release his tax returns. Why should he? Once he lost, Trump would be both insanely famous and a martyr to Crooked Hillary. His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared would be international celebrities. Steve Bannon would become the de facto head of the tea-party movement. Kellyanne Conway would be a cable-news star. Melania Trump, who had been assured by her husband that he wouldn’t become president, could return to inconspicuously lunching. Losing would work out for everybody. Losing was winning.

Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears — and not of joy.

There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump. But still to come was the final transformation: Suddenly, Donald Trump became a man who believed that he deserved to be, and was wholly capable of being, the president of the United States.

It should be noted that a lot of Wolff's material seems to come from Steve Bannon, who is notoriously unreliable as a source and may or may not have an axe to grind with Donald Trump.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The best comment I've seen on twitter suggests that Wolff is only interested in Wolff just like Bannon is only interested in Bannon and Trump is only interested in Trump. I'm sure they're all lying.

The fun part is what happens if Trump alienates Bannon and the neo-fascist Breitbart readers.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Lyin' Don has tweeted: “Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. … Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.”
Over at the Post a columnist suggests that the correct use of the word “whom” suggests someone may have helped him compose the statement. I do love a catty journalist, don't you?
For your continued enjoyment, the Guardian's summary of the Bannon book is a free click.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O dear - what a noisy playground. Is there no handy Nanny, to take these fractious toddlers home?

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Nanny needs to be in two places at once, what with Donald and Kim Jong-un now engaged in a "see who can pee highest up the wall" competition over their respective nuclear buttons.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Alas, indeed she does.

Perhaps some old-school Prefects, with flogging powers, are required instead.

[Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
For your continued enjoyment, the Guardian's summary of the Bannon book is a free click.

"He's not only crazy, he's stupid".
Now that's a quote (from a longtime billionaire associate of Trump) that hits the nail on the head.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
For your continued enjoyment, the Guardian's summary of the Bannon book is a free click.

"He's not only crazy, he's stupid".
Now that's a quote (from a longtime billionaire associate of Trump) that hits the nail on the head.

He's greedy too, which only leaves premeditated evil, but he's too stupid for that.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I keep waiting for The Doctor to turn up, heal the rift in space and time which has got us here, and send us back to the evening of November 8, 2016.

This is beyond pathetic. No-one is looking good here. And the media has its little jokes on what is being said which makes us feel a bit better. And the Groper in Chief buzzes for another Diet Coke, tweets some inanity and so it continues. FFS. I don't know how you Americans get up every day. Your resistance, and willingness to continue to stand against Trump and hope for 2018, and 2020, is an inspiration. I'd be worn down by now.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Bloody hell.

If this is true...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Bloody hell.

If this is true...

Put it this way: would you be surprised?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Bloody hell.

If this is true...

Put it this way: would you be surprised?
How gross!! Next thing you know he'll have 22 year old, volunteer White House interns blowing him in the Oval Office!


[Eek!]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This will cost you a Post click, but the dean of DC commentators E.J. Dionne says we're rushing towards a breaking point. Permanent damage is being done to the nation. The tweets of the last few days are surely proof of this.
Among the links he cites are this long piece from Politico which assures us that it's actually worse than what is reported in the press.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
When are you going to stop the "but look at him" strategy Romanlion? It works out there, but I don't think it works in here.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
When are you going to stop the "but look at him" strategy Romanlion? It works out there, but I don't think it works in here.

Yeah, not like that would justify removing him from office anyway.

My only strategy is to be an acoustic tile in this cavernous hold.

It only works in here.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Here's a fresh horror, that I missed over the holidays. From Vanity Fair:
"In October, [Steve] Bannon called an adviser and said he would consider running for president if Trump doesn’t run for reelection in 2020. Which Bannon has told people is a realistic possibility."

I had not thought a worse president was imaginable! Clearly I am but a neophyte.

Also from the Wolff book, Ivanka wants to run as well. I think this entire country needs to be fumigated and exorcised.

[ 04. January 2018, 01:55: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
My only strategy is to be an acoustic tile in this cavernous hold.

It only works in here.

How do you know that? My perspective is that your contributions to discussions here are effective when you provide current information. Mostly, you don't do that.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
He did it. He actually did it:

quote:
Trump to North Korean leader Kim: My ‘Nuclear Button’ is ‘much bigger & more powerful’
WTF?!?!
with Trump it's always about "mine's bigger".
We need to lock them both up, perhaps in Putin's dacha country house, with him in residence. Supply them with all manner of measuring methods from all cultures. Give them war toys, foam bats, etc. Fill the place with food and other supplies. Then go out, lock all the doors, and quietly tiptoe away.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Neither of them have a clue as to the consequences of their words or actions.

Has there ever been a president fighting so many petty little battles on a small scale ‘tho? - Bannon, the press, the size of crowds etc etc etc
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Bloody hell.

If this is true...

I heard that one of the book excerpts claims that Trump sleeps alone in the WH and has caused some issues with locks which annoyed the Secret Service. It seems like he is rather paranoid.

If all of this is true (and how would we know if it was or wasn't?) - then the picture emerging is of a deeply deeply disturbing individual.

Clinton was bad enough, this is a whole other level of disgusting.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I keep waiting for The Doctor to turn up, heal the rift in space and time which has got us here, and send us back to the evening of November 8, 2016.

{edit}

FFS. I don't know how you Americans get up every day. Your resistance, and willingness to continue to stand against Trump and hope for 2018, and 2020, is an inspiration. I'd be worn down by now.

It would probably take all the Doctor's incarnations--and we'd better be very specific about what we want. E.g., Hillary wins in a landslide, is inaugurated, does a great job, and makes it through 2 terms, inspiring girls everywhere. T loses, realizes that makes him absurdly happy, retires to Mar-a-Lago, and has a tag-team of skilled therapists that he sees weekly--and he begins to get better.

As to how Americans are managing to cope: Sometimes, all you can really to is just focus on your day-to-day stuff. IMHO, that's one of the ways that indigenous people have survived.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[QUOTE]
As to how Americans are managing to cope: Sometimes, all you can really to is just focus on your day-to-day stuff. IMHO, that's one of the ways that indigenous people have survived.

Without wanting to put a damper on that thought, don't first nations communities often have huge alcohol, drug, suicide and other health problems?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I think Trump is trying strategies that are rarely if ever tried in post-war international relations. Certainly no-one has tried outright abuse before as a method of resolving an international dispute. If the Koreas do get together and 'normalise' relations, I am inclined to award that to Trump if there is no further intervening cause. I think a rapprochement between North and South is quite possible. If there is a nuclear war over Korea, I will die with a very surprised expression on my face. I still haven't made a will.

If there is peace in the Middle East with Netanyahu in power, I will go swimming naked in the Derwent River in Hobart in the next winter (there's an event). I think the prospects for peace will significantly increase if a more moderate government is able to come to power. I think there is a thirst for peace among a great many Israelis that has been thwarted for a long time. I think Trump's positioning on Jerusalem is largely insignificant other than in excluding America from the peace process. This is the great problem with what he's done, from an American perspective. There are many other countries and international organisations that can foster peace talks. I have no insight into Palestinian attitudes to peace, but I do hold out hope. I would be interested in reading any online resource like Haaretz that has a Palestinian perspective. Please PM me if you can recommend any.

Bugger it. If there is peace between Israel and Palestine I will gladly swim naked in the Derwent River in winter, whoever is in charge. I would be so happy. I'm tearing up just thinking about it. It would be worth at least a hundred Christmases. Lord, may it happen before I die.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Bugger it. If there is peace between Israel and Palestine I will gladly swim naked in the Derwent River in winter, whoever is in charge. I would be so happy. I'm tearing up just thinking about it. It would be worth at least a hundred Christmases. Lord, may it happen before I die.

If there is peace between Israel and Palestine I might fly out and join you. It would be wonderful!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I heard that one of the book excerpts claims that Trump sleeps alone in the WH and has caused some issues with locks which annoyed the Secret Service. It seems like he is rather paranoid.

Excerpts are here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html

Though bear in mind that the author has the reputation for being rather cavalier and imaginative with the truth.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Wait ... naked? Shouldn't you at least wear swim briefs? We would not want to see you arrested for indecent exposure.
Look, it's a dynasty! But if this is really Ivanka's ambition she ought to rein in the old man better. It's no fun being the first woman president of a smoking radioactive wasteland.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Always supposing there are any survivors who might vote for her........

'Dynasty', pronounced Die Nasty, is probably the correct word.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
If the Koreas do get together and 'normalise' relations, I am inclined to award that to Trump if there is no further intervening cause.

Does this count as an "intervening cause"?

quote:
A few paragraphs from the bottom of the story, the Times buried the notion that North Korea is getting desperate because, in the past 60 days, the South has been showing signs of putting real teeth in the sanctions imposed by the UN. In October, South Korea had evidence that third-nation ships were transferring oil to North Korean ships at sea, ship-to-ship. This is in violation of the sanctions. But that transfer took place in late October, and the South Koreans, generally speaking, like to be very deliberate. So when the ship (a Chinese-owned vessel) made another port call in South Korea in mid-November, they questioned the crew.

At nearly the same time, the US government went public with a largely unnoticed bit of data. They published satellite photos of another ship making an at-sea transfer to a North Korean ship. This got almost no press at the time, but it was a huge development courtesy of the US Department of the Treasury, which as far as I know has no satellite at all, or high-tech surveillance aircraft, operating in the vicinity of the Korean Peninsula.

South Korea got real on the issue when they decided to formally seize the Chinese ship, the Lighthouse Winmere. At almost the same time, they refused to allow a Panamanian-flagged vessel, the Koti, which they believed had done the same thing, to depart a South Korean harbor. Sometime after that, they seized the Koti as well. In other words, they have started truly enforcing the sanctions — not by going after the North Koreans directly, but by making it tough for other nations to flout them. Perhaps using their own intel, or using American intel, or using the cover of "American intel" to conceal their own, the South Koreans are for the first time putting a significant economic bite into North Korea. We've discussed such a "quarantine" previously.

It looks like South Korea is doing that to a degree, closer to home than we would, and in a way we [the United States] could not. The real motive behind Kim's overture might be to relieve that pressure. Not everything has to be about us Americans, right?

This seems like a much more plausible explanation for any recent overtures by North Korea than the idea that they've suddenly realized that the U.S. is heavily armed and antagonistic towards them. They've known that since the Fifties.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I am thinking if you start cutting off oil from the North Koreans you are grabbing them by the testicles. Seems like a good reason to talk to me.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems like a much more plausible explanation for any recent overtures by North Korea than the idea that they've suddenly realized that the U.S. is heavily armed and antagonistic towards them. They've known that since the Fifties.

The other recent change is of course that NK can (convince itself that America believes NK can) retaliate directly at America and hence can be a bit less paranoid.
Though at first sight that conflicts with the Petrol explanation, and crazy President theory, it may be that they interleave.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Always supposing there are any survivors who might vote for her........

'Dynasty', pronounced Die Nasty, is probably the correct word.

[Disappointed]

IJ

Vote? What is this verb? Though I believe Father Putin used to use some such ploy. No, since the review of the Constitution (sad old fashioned document) that nonsense hasn't been necessary.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Ah, no - let us live in hope!

The sad and diminished denizens of the smoking wasteland, all that is left of once-great Usania, will Come To Their Senses, and re-introduce the Constitution (with a few amendments re gun control).

A short version, capable of being scratched onto stones, will be required, of course.

IJ
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
You do know there's a conservative movement afoot to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the whole thing, don't you? It's a scary thing.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

quote:
Sarah Huckabee Sanders began the briefing by introducing a “special guest,” and then Trump’s hideous orange visage loomed on screens placed on either side of her. He read a script in which he bragged about the stock market, took credit for bonuses workers have recently received, etc.

Trump is in the White House today. He could have strolled down to the briefing room and made a statement in person. But that would require the ability to make a coherent statement live and the discipline to avoid going ape-shit at reporter questions. Since Trump possesses neither of these abilities, they went with the Wizard of Oz approach.

This is not the way to squelch rumors that Trump is coming apart at the seams mentally.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Rumours? Really?

Surely many, many people have been convinced that this is a man who is unhinged for a long time; what has worried many of us is not just the mental/emotional state of he who is now POTUS, rather of the capability of rational thought of those who voted for him - indeed for anyone who ever, for one second, thought this man was a fit-and-proper-person to be POTUS.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
There is unhinged and there is unhinged. With everything that has bgoing on since he became President I wouldn't be surprised if it has tipped him over the edge. I thought I may be immune to his madness after a while, but it seems to be getting worse.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Wouldn't invoking the 25th Amendment be a great way of making the Mueller investigation go away?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He could fall down in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue foaming at the mouth. But with the connivance of the GOP House and Senate there still would be no way to remove him. He is allegedly seeing a doctor in a week or so. I would bet long odds that this medico will have his report written for him. Did you see that Lyin' Don actually had his height adjusted in his official biography? He made himself taller, so that, when this is compared to his weight, he is not medically obese. I am not overweight, I'm undertall!

In other words, there may be physical, medical, even moral reasons to remove Crooked Don. But there is no political will. And until that happens, we're stuck.

November. First Tuesday. 300 days.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
What I don't get, and forgive my stupidity and if this was covered earlier (I guess it was), is why Republicans are happy to go along.

Was it all about the tax cuts? The drilling I read may start up? Are they prepared to be annihilated in 300 days for the sake of some victories, losing the war? This surely has to damage them long-term. Or will a suave-talking, sparkly-blue-eyed silver fox rise from the ashes and a majority, however small, of the American public will go, "It will be different this time...He speaks for us," and vote the Rs back in?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
What I don't get, and forgive my stupidity and if this was covered earlier (I guess it was), is why Republicans are happy to go along.

I would suggest that they have all the spinal fortitude of a garden slug, but then the Slug and Snail Defamation League would be after me. A more psychologically nuanced thought might be that they know. They know that time is short, that doom is rapidly descending, and they vigorously push their heads into the ground and stuff their fingers in their ears. Because there is no way out.

Vanity Fair, one of the many publications that has really proved their worth this year,
delves into the end game of the unfit-for-office route. The man is clearly under pressure and very stressed. And remember he's in his 70s, obese, and living a notably unhealthy life style. (He likes McDonalds because he's terrified of being poisoned, and if you walk into the burger joint the burgers are already made and wrapped, waiting to be sold.)
And, just in case you haven't seen and enjoyed it, VF published this several years ago and it's still one of their most popular photo journals ever: The History of Trump's Hair.
These are all free clicks.

[ 05. January 2018, 00:17: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
(He likes McDonalds because he's terrified of being poisoned, and if you walk into the burger joint the burgers are already made and wrapped, waiting to be sold.)

Slightly off the point, but at least in these parts this is no longer the case. All burgers are made to order from patties sitting in heated trays.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Please don't tell 44.3. Since nobody with the power to do so seems able or willing to impeach him or 25th-Amendment him, I'm clinging to my hopes of cholesterol downing him.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
Wouldn't invoking the 25th Amendment be a great way of making the Mueller investigation go away?
No, Pence is also suspected of being involved with the Russians or at least involved in the cover-up.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Perhaps this is the answer to your question, from today's NYT:
"But most of all, the book confirms what is already widely understood — not just that Trump is entirely unfit for the presidency, but that everyone around him knows it."

"But most members of Trump’s campaign and administration are simply traitors. They are willing, out of some complex mix of ambition, resentment, cynicism and rationalization, to endanger all of our lives — all of our children’s lives — by refusing to tell the country what they know about the senescent fool who boasts of the size of his “nuclear button” on Twitter."

Over in the Post TV host Joe Scarborough says:
'Mika Brzezinski and I had a tense meeting with Trump following what I considered to be a bumbling debate performance in September 2015. I asked the candidate a blunt question.

“Can you read?”

Awkward silence.

“I’m serious, Donald. Do you read?” I continued. “If someone wrote you a one-page paper on a policy, could you read it?”

Taken aback, Trump quietly responded that he could while holding up a Bible given to him by his mother. He then joked that he read it all the time.'

Barack Obama told us, and not enough of us believed him. He warned that Lyin' Don did not have the temperament to be president. Everyone assumed it was mere partisanship, when it was a plain statement of fact.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
quote:
Wouldn't invoking the 25th Amendment be a great way of making the Mueller investigation go away?
No, Pence is also suspected of being involved with the Russians or at least involved in the cover-up.
Perhaps we can 25th amendment trump, and then impeach Pence. But that would give us Ryan, or some other criminal that Pence selects as Veep in the interim.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
With your Korea thing Croessus, I wonder to what extent South Korea's desire to better enforce sanctions is a result of pressure from the White House. I also wonder how the South Koreans are reacting to Trump's brinkmanship, and whether that is prompting them to take steps to bring North Korea to the table.

I'm not putting these as arguments, but questions. I don't want to give Trump credit, but who's to say that this or that factor isn't important when de-escalation occurs.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
(He likes McDonalds because he's terrified of being poisoned, and if you walk into the burger joint the burgers are already made and wrapped, waiting to be sold.)

Slightly off the point, but at least in these parts this is no longer the case. All burgers are made to order from patties sitting in heated trays.
I don't think the idea is so bad - there are lots of burger joints, the beef patties are made in advance and so if Trump wants a burger, the chances of someone getting to it before he gets to the random joint he chooses is very small.

But then it is no surprise that Trump's reasoning is garbage. And this seems to me to be the biggest problem with Trump's whole mindset - he focusses on one small and minor detail and misses a whole other (likely more important) threat. On almost every issue.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
What I don't get, and forgive my stupidity and if this was covered earlier (I guess it was), is why Republicans are happy to go along.

Because apart from the theatrics, he generally pushing core Republican policy.

I don't think the majority of them believe they will be disappear in the midterms (its hard to read whether the Democrats will make a big breakthrough), and presumably there are a few who know they will be affected and are demob happy and looking forward to the private sector roles that are a sinecure for their actions.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I’m sure Wolff’s book is simply trashy tabloid stuff. But the more trump rages about it the more copies will be sold - and the more likely it’s revelations all begins to look.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Gosh, what a result for Donald!

Having fired off angry threats of legal action in an attempt to halt the publication of Wolff's book next Tuesday, Henry Holt brought it forward and copies went on sale at midnight EST.

I may break the golden rule and succumb to using Am**on [Biased]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Another one considering making a rare Kindle purchase here...

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I’m sure Wolff’s book is simply trashy tabloid stuff. But the more trump rages about it the more copies will be sold - and the more likely it’s revelations all begins to look.

There seems little point in threatening to sue unless there is some substance to it.

Also, from what I've read, Wolff has recordings to back up his quotes.

In another incredible example of life imitating art, it also seems he was basically hanging around the West Wing with a press pass for months like that author in House of Cards. One has to wonder who else might have been hanging around too.

And finally, Trump has clearly never heard of the Streisand Effect.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Here's Wolff's story of how the book came to be written.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
Sadly, it seems that a lot of folk out there consider Michael Woolf a pretty unreliable narrator. His default setting seems to be 'Drama' not 'Documentary' , and that piece referrred to earlier seems a bit like that.

Woolf has a bit of form for inventing things for the sake of the narration 'created rather than recreated' says the following item

https://newrepublic.com/article/67746/wolff-trapped

The piece above does give a real sense of place and time and catches you up in the events, but a lot of it isn't very verifible (unless he does have recordings of course).

Maybe a deserving 'fake news expose' of a 'fake news president', but it will sadly be a book that is easy to dismiss.

[ 05. January 2018, 12:23: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:

Maybe a deserving 'fake news expose' of a 'fake news president', but it will sadly be a book that is easy to dismiss.

By everyone except trump, I expect, who will pick over it and rage over every detail.

I’m off to buy shares in popcorn ...

🍿 🍿
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Wouldn't invoking the 25th Amendment be a great way of making the Mueller investigation go away?

No. Mueller's instructions are:

quote:
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
In other words, Mueller's investigation is into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections between the Russian government and members of the Trump campaign. That goes on whether Trump is in office or not.

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
With your Korea thing Croessus, I wonder to what extent South Korea's desire to better enforce sanctions is a result of pressure from the White House. I also wonder how the South Koreans are reacting to Trump's brinkmanship, and whether that is prompting them to take steps to bring North Korea to the table.

I'm not putting these as arguments, but questions. I don't want to give Trump credit, but who's to say that this or that factor isn't important when de-escalation occurs.

The simplest explanation is that South Korea is stepping up sanctions enforcement because they believe that it's in their political best interests to do so. More specifically South Korean interests in reining in North Korea's behavior exists independently of what the American position may happen to be. They live just next door, after all.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Gosh, what a result for Donald!

Having fired off angry threats of legal action in an attempt to halt the publication of Wolff's book next Tuesday, Henry Holt brought it forward and copies went on sale at midnight EST.

I may break the golden rule and succumb to using Am**on [Biased]

Consider going to your local independent bookstore and see if they're selling it. I know stores who will also sell you the Kindle version, on their web site. You do not have to support Amazon if you don't want to!

As to Crooked Don's eating habits, this Guardian piece by Zoe Williams has rare charm. The most tabloid-esque detail: "The Twitter account @rogueSNRadvisor also revealed how much weight he had gained in the one year between winning the election and this trip: 100lb (seven stone)." I am amazed, I am agog.

Williams wistfully concludes, "Obama – nobody forget Obama – walked a desperate tightrope of presenting himself in an honest way while at the same time masking his effortless superiority, which he managed by eating salted caramel and admitting it. Just imagine for one second that being the worst thing you could say about the US president."
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Anyone needing their laugh for the day need look no further than yesterday's press briefing. In response to more questions about the Wolf book:

quote:
“The president,” Sanders told reporters, “believes in making sure that information is accurate before pushing it out as fact, when it certainly and clearly is not.”
Source: Washington Post

Now I have no idea what on earth that final clause means. But the rest is just pure [Killing me] .
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Looks like this book has got Bestseller written all over it from the get-go. Doubtless a pile a cack which we already know or would rather not know.

This bloke is going the eight years —deal with it World.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Interview with the author.

I think he's hit the jackpot. I'm sure the book would have sold well even without the WH attempt to restrain publication. But with that 'additional help' from Childe Donald, this will be a runaway best seller.

The interview had a deadly plausibility. I'm sure he has notes and tapes confirming the essential reality of what is said behind Trump's back.

Time for my Frank Herbert quote again.

quote:
If you put away from you those who tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections.
When these are the reflections of a spoiled, deteriorating child, clearly in his seventh age, the rot and the stench are indeed very great.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Well said rolyn. I've said that all along. For gaining nearly 2 lbs a week since the election alone. That IS impressive.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Does The Great Guzzler own shares in McD*****s?

The company appears to be named after him..... [Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Unkind friends elsewhere have suggested that the audiobook version be done by Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I'm wondering about any historical precedents for Trump:

I can only think of two, Caligula and bad King John. Rome survived Caligula and England survived King John, right? So America will survive Trump.

Hoping and praying.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You guys over there have had some truly worthless kings, right? Incapacitated, insane? We look at you and hope.
The question of neurological decline analyzed from a medical angle by NY Magazine. The quotations about Lyin' Don's repetitions, failure to recognize friends, and incoherence are terrifying. I have an aunt who's like a vinyl record with a scratch in it -- she keeps on repeating the same thing, without realizing that she's already told us that anecdote. I am confident that my cousins don't let her make any major decisions; she is clearly incapable of it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
In UK history before the crown was denuded of real power, the art of the courtier was based on the premise that kings and queens were spoiled and over-protected from reality. The trick was learning how to be both a successful manipulator and winning the position of 'most trusted'.

All this is very well portrayed, for example, in Wolf Hall. Henry VIII was much smarter than Trump, but was very volatile. Misreading him was likely to be fatal.

I think the real lesson from the history of UK is that dealing with incompetent and/or volatile rulers was a pretty common challenge, and a chancy business. Certainly the White House 'court' is at least as esoteric in its performance as some of the more exotic illustrations from UK history.

[ 05. January 2018, 17:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I'm wondering about any historical precedents for Trump:

I can only think of two, Caligula and bad King John. Rome survived Caligula and England survived King John, right? So America will survive Trump.

Hoping and praying.

If you mean precedents for a leader mentally unable to adequately discharge the duties of his position we don't have to go that far afield. Two examples from American history come to mind: Woodrow Wilson, who never fully recovered from a stroke in 1919, and Ronald Reagan, who seems to have suffered from the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease during his second term.

In both cases the work-around involved a personally loyal cadre of aides who worked hard to conceal the president's true condition and guide/make any decisions that needed to be made. In both cases the key member of the team was the President's wife. One of the downsides of this system is that the aides will sometimes start up side projects to suit their own agendas using the borrowed authority of the president. (e.g. funding a secret war in Central America, funded by selling missiles to Iran.)

I'm not sure Donald Trump has anyone has anyone that personally loyal to him in his White House. Ivanka maybe?

[ 05. January 2018, 17:44: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
John (1199-1216) was good, bad, misguided, or plain unlucky - depending on whose account of his reign you read.

Henry VI (1422-1461 and 1470-1471) was pious (to the extent that he became a candidate for canonisation, and his Hat was preserved as a Holy Relic), or one of the weakest, and most ineffectual, kings we've ever had - depending on whose account of his reign you read.

History is indeed written by the victors, but one lives in hope that the history of the (hopefully) brief reign of The Great Orange Pumpkin will be told truthfully......

........by the survivors.

IJ
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
When you refer to Caligula as a precedent for Trump, bear in mind how Claudius became emperor. Does Trump trust the Secret Service?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Two face]

O, what a wicked thought.....

[Snigger]

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
John (1199-1216) was good, bad, misguided, or plain unlucky - depending on whose account of his reign you read.

Henry VI (1422-1461 and 1470-1471) was pious (to the extent that he became a candidate for canonisation, and his Hat was preserved as a Holy Relic), or one of the weakest, and most ineffectual, kings we've ever had - depending on whose account of his reign you read.

History is indeed written by the victors, but one lives in hope that the history of the (hopefully) brief reign of The Great Orange Pumpkin will be told truthfully......

........by the survivors.

IJ

Oh how I wish that Shakespeare were alive to write a play about King Donald!
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
If he could write it as a black comedy.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No, no - not black! Those are Bad Hombres, or Muslims, or something...

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Oh how I wish that Shakespeare were alive to write a play about King Donald!

He kind of did.

In other news the Senate Judiciary Committee has finally leapt into action, issuing the FBI a criminal referral for . . . Christopher Steele?

quote:
Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham issued a criminal referral to the Justice Department on Friday urging the department to examine whether the former British spy Christopher Steele made false statements to the FBI "about the distribution of claims contained in the dossier."

In a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray, Grassley and Graham wrote: "Attached please find a classified memorandum related to certain communications between Christopher Steele and multiple US news outlets regarding the so-called 'Trump dossier' that Mr. Steele compiled on behalf of Fusion GPS for the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee and also provided to the FBI."

<snip>

The Senators did not disclose what led them to believe that Steele had misled the FBI. And it is unclear why the DOJ would not have moved to charge Steele if the FBI had found evidence of wrongdoing in their interviews with him.

<snip>

Additionally, there is no evidence that Steele himself was ever under FBI investigation or gave a formal interview to the bureau, raising questions about whether his comments to federal agents regarding the dossier were material.

Legal experts said the referral seemed politically motivated insofar as it did not appear to provide information to the FBI that the bureau did not already have.

Just for those of you who were holding out hope that Congress might do anything other than cover for Donald Trump.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
<snip>

Now I have no idea what on earth that final clause means. But the rest is just pure [Killing me] .

I wondered about that clause myself. I am hoping it was a verbal version of crossing one's fingers behind one's back when telling lies.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Croesos

I wonder what Howard Baker would make of this craven partisanship? What did the GOP Senators and Representatives not want to know and when did they not want to know it?
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
If Christopher Steele does come under serious investigation by Trump's supporters, would the British government stand up for him?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A couple of excellent pieces about the Wolff book brouhaha. These should be free clicks.
Wolff as a journalist, from GQ.
And the New Yorker also has an angle on it.
And, advice on what to do about it all. Stay engaged, don't despair, and vote. 300 days...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Brenda, it's late in the UK and I might be missing something, but isn't your third link the same as your second?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Look below the story for the advice: engage politically.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I worry that this book will just add another string to the Trump bow. However great or insightful or true the content of the book might be, it looks like the author's past failings will damage its credibility. That's already the line taken by some stories about it on Australian television.

The allegations will only damage Trump if he sues and the matter runs to trial, and then only (hopefully) people who are undecided.

As Brenda is reminding us: look to the election. He must be first hog-tied and then defeated at the ballot box, not in the court of social media.

Croessus, you are of course right on Korea. What the hell was I thinking? I saw a report of Trump claiming victory in Korea by tweet and making a claim similar to mine. Oh the shame!

[edit: I pledge to undergo intensive remedial training in the use of colons and semicolons.]

[ 06. January 2018, 01:10: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Brenda, it's late in the UK and I might be missing something, but isn't your third link the same as your second?

Dang, you're right. Sorry about that!
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Again, the story about political engagement is at the bottom of the link.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
In other news the Senate Judiciary Committee has finally leapt into action, issuing the FBI a criminal referral for . . . Christopher Steele?
Just a small point here. It was not the Senate Judiciary Committee that made the referral but the two leading Republicans of that committee that made the referral. The Democrats on the committee weren't even allowed to see the complaint, let alone vote on it. The committee is practically in civil war at this time.

Looks like Mitt Romney will be standing for the US Senate on behalf of Utah. He will likely get it since Utah gave him 97% of the vote when he ran in the presidential primary there. But there was one thing one of his spokespersons said that got me.

He said Romney is concerned about hearing how many of the congressional Republicans are saying they are serving the President. Romney wants it to be known he will be serving at the pleasure of the people of Utah. In actuality, that is the way it should be, all of Congress is serving at the pleasure of the people who voted for them.

2018 will be an interesting year. There is strong indication that both houses of Congress may flip Democrat.

And then we will have a valid check on the power of the president.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
And article supporting the above point.

Sorry, I forgot to add it the above post.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Hopefully a few other Republicans follow Romney's lead in not bowing before the Beast of Babylon.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

2018 will be an interesting year. There is strong indication that both houses of Congress may flip Democrat.

And then we will have a valid check on the power of the president.

I hate to rain on the parade, but China, the EU and the US are all likely to experience strong economic growth this year. It is likely that a majority of people in the developed world will end 2018 better off than they started it, whatever our idiot politicians do. That will give incumbent parties a significant advantage.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Trump's Twitter feed right now is beyond priceless. Poe's law in action.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Alas, although he may think otherwise, the Great Goblin is actually living on this planet.

Worse luck.

Entertaining, perhaps, for those of us not living in Usania (or should that be Insania?), but for how long can this farrago of nonsense go on?

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sad old git. Wonder why he needed 3 TVs AND a lock on the door?

Never diagnose mental disorder from a distance. BUT the disquieting signs are there for all to see. The Twitter feed is plausible evidence that there is something seriously wrong with him.

He really has lost it. It's beginning to look like implementation of the 25th has moved into the category of a necessary kindness. Just a question of when, and who will bite the bullet.

Time for the medieval messenger to step up.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I hate to rain on the parade, but China, the EU and the US are all likely to experience strong economic growth this year. It is likely that a majority of people in the developed world will end 2018 better off than they started it, whatever our idiot politicians do. That will give incumbent parties a significant advantage.

A rising economic tide will not float boats that don’t exist. The strengthening of an economy does not unilaterally benefit everyone. Economic disparity is still on the increase. However, you are correct in that it will help incumbent parties. Perception is stronger than reality.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Trump's Twitter feed right now is beyond priceless. Poe's law in action.

Every new tweet adds weight to Michael Wolff’s contention that Trump is acting like a toddler with dementia.

What I don’t understand is the 51K+ ❤️ hearts that accompany each tweet 🤔
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sad old git. Wonder why he needed 3 TVs AND a lock on the door?

Never diagnose mental disorder from a distance. BUT the disquieting signs are there for all to see. The Twitter feed is plausible evidence that there is something seriously wrong with him.

He really has lost it. It's beginning to look like implementation of the 25th has moved into the category of a necessary kindness. Just a question of when, and who will bite the bullet.

Time for the medieval messenger to step up.

When? 2570 days.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
According to the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, frontotemporal dementia has symptoms including "acting inappropriately or impulsively", "appearing selfish or unsympathetic", "overeating", "getting distracted easily" and "struggling to make the right sounds when saying a word".

I remember clearly when my Mum first started with dementia. Just the occasional word came out wrong. But one of the most noticeable things was the way she drank from a glass - she seemed to need two hands to guide it to her mouth.

A lot like this.

If it is dementia then the illness will show itself clearly, and in public, sooner or later.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
What I don’t understand is the 51K+ ❤️ hearts that accompany each tweet 🤔

At least some are probably bots. But it’s a good reminder that, no matter how bad it gets, we’re still going to need massive turnout in the next two elections to stop it. My wife was a volunteer in the first Obama campaign, and tells stories about what they did to get the votes out. Rides, babysitting, pizza for anyone waiting in long lines to vote. The Clinton campaign didn’t organize like that, and it probably bit them in the ass. Don’t let poll numbers fool you. 2018 and 2020 are going to be all hands on deck elections if we want to beat Trump.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
300 days, folks. November, 2018.
Here from the Atlantic is an analysis of the current Tweetstorm. (Lord, that those words ever left my fingertips...)
It begins:
“I can handle things. I’m smart! Not like everybody says, like dumb. I’m smart and I want respect!”

This morning’s presidential Twitter outburst recalls those words of Fredo Corleone’s in one of the most famous scenes from The Godfather series. Trump tweeted that his “two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” and in a subsequent tweet called himself a “very stable genius.”

Trump may imagine that he’s Michael Corleone, the tough and canny rightful heir—or even Sonny Corleone, the terrifyingly violent but at least powerful heir apparent—but after today he is Fredo forever.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
I hate to rain on the parade, but China, the EU and the US are all likely to experience strong economic growth this year. It is likely that a majority of people in the developed world will end 2018 better off than they started it, whatever our idiot politicians do. That will give incumbent parties a significant advantage.
The election will come at a time when most people will be discovering their health insurance premiums will be going up because of the demise of the ACA. If Congress even attempts to cut into Social Security or Medicare they will be dancing on the third rail of American politics.

It is my contention that the election of Doug Jones to the Senate in Alabama will provide a roadmap for the national democratic party. Minorities and women will decide the election. When the Trump administration is threatening the rights of Hispanic citizens, trying to backtrack on the equal rights of homosexuals, even ignoring the opinion of 64% of the national population concerning the legalization of a weed, they are on pretty thin ice. Toss in the current wave against sexual harassment and abuse, which got started in reaction to Trump's boasting he could grab female's p@ssy and get away with it, I would say he is going down if he can last that long.

Did I say anything about the ongoing Russian investigation?

Should I mention someone's deteriorating mental health?

Economics be damned. China's economy is about to collapse because of its heavy cooperate debt. Economists are saying its growth will likely slow down this year. The American markets will likely see a correction before the November election. And no one knows for sure what Brexit if it is carried out, will mean to the European economy.

Throw in a few wars here and there, and it could be a mess for the current administration.

My read.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh I hope not. We have been lucky this year. There have been no major crises that he could not ignore (Puerto Ricans). The man could not organize is way out of a paper bag open at both ends. Presented with a real crisis he and the crew of toadies around him will flail like fish. Look how they're reacting to the mere publication of a book! And we'll be doomed.
 
Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
[QUOTE] [b]I
Should I mention someone's deteriorating mental health?

I'm no Shakespeare scholar, but lately Gloucester from King Lear keeps springing unbidden and unwelcome to mind.

The king is mad. How stiff is my vile sense,
That I stand up and have ingenious feeling
Of my huge sorrows. Better I were distract—
So should my thoughts be severed from my griefs,
And woes by wrong imaginations lose
The knowledge of themselves.

Pretty opaque stuff even by The Bard's standards. Take it away, Sparknotes:

The king is insane. I hate the fact that I’m sane enough to be aware of my own great suffering. It’d be better to be delirious and unaware of anything. Then my mind would be free of sorrow, and sadness would be forgotten in my hallucinations.
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... Trump tweeted that his “two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” ...

Is there nobody in the White House who's paid to point out to him that these messages only serve to make the world realise what a complete and utter arse he is?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, that would be John Kelly's job. The Post reports:
'White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly spoke briefly to reporters at Camp David. He had not seen Trump's tweets and, when a reporter showed them to him, he responded, "Okay." Then he said Trump posted the tweets in order to circumvent the media "filter" on reporting on Wolff's book -- even though Trump praised the media for questioning some of Wolff's reporting techniques.'
There, you see? It's all part of this bigly plan.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I thought the White House staff were paid to keep reassuring The Great Gropo just how smart and, like, stable he is......

This is becoming either a farce, or a Greek tragedy.

Maybe one of his fundie-evo mates could exorcise the demon which seems to be possessing him?

Where's Bent Toddley when you need him?

IJ
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Good grief.

What will digital archaeologists in the year 3018 make of this? 2013-2016, PotUS Tweets caring, considerate, show policy successes; 2017-, taken over by faulty AI program???
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sad old git. Wonder why he needed 3 TVs AND a lock on the door?

Smart money is on porn. Also explains why he wants to strip the bed himself.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Good grief.

What will digital archaeologists in the year 3018 make of this? 2013-2016, PotUS Tweets caring, considerate, show policy successes; 2017-, taken over by faulty AI program???

You are an optimist. The odds, under this, um, leadership of the human race surviving the next 6 months (never mind an entire century) seem to me to be shrinking daily.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Today, driving to get my hair cut, it occurred to me that the book Fire & Fury would make a stupendous opera. The Donald would of course be sung by a bass. Baritones could sing the roles of Steve Bannon and Mitch McConnell. The mournful Melania a soprano, of course, as should Ivanka also, and the miserable Sarah Sanders an alto. Jared and Donald Jr. can be tenors.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
DT sounds more like a counter-tenor to me. Castrato if you can find one.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And the role of Mike Pence is played by a Labrador retriever.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
DT sounds more like a counter-tenor to me. Castrato if you can find one.

[Overused] [Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And the role of Mike Pence is played by a Labrador retriever.

[Confused]

Labrador retrievers are lovely dogs; they're sweet and affectionate and wonderful companions. How could you possibly compare the odious Pence to one of them? [Eek!]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
But it’s a good reminder that, no matter how bad it gets, we’re still going to need massive turnout in the next two elections to stop it. My wife was a volunteer in the first Obama campaign, and tells stories about what they did to get the votes out. Rides, babysitting, pizza for anyone waiting in long lines to vote. The Clinton campaign didn’t organize like that, and it probably bit them in the ass. Don’t let poll numbers fool you. 2018 and 2020 are going to be all hands on deck elections if we want to beat Trump.

Hear hear. I don't think Australians are able to give money to campaigns, but I'd be prepared to bake a few pizzas. I also have some dirt on the Trump campaign if anyone is interested [Smile]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Labradors? But this would be an actor Lab, playing the role of a panting and adoring sycophant. The dog would of course have to sit, roll over, and sit up to beg whenever The Donald commanded, and spend the rest of the stage time wagging and cringing. You'd need a big pale dog, hence a Lab.


quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
But it’s a good reminder that, no matter how bad it gets, we’re still going to need massive turnout in the next two elections to stop it. My wife was a volunteer in the first Obama campaign, and tells stories about what they did to get the votes out. Rides, babysitting, pizza for anyone waiting in long lines to vote. The Clinton campaign didn’t organize like that, and it probably bit them in the ass. Don’t let poll numbers fool you. 2018 and 2020 are going to be all hands on deck elections if we want to beat Trump.

Hear hear. I don't think Australians are able to give money to campaigns, but I'd be prepared to bake a few pizzas. I also have some dirt on the Trump campaign if anyone is interested [Smile]
Oh yes. We must all vote, in every election, forever. My husband and I have already calculated that when we move out of this state we won't switch our voting registrations for a while. (We will still own a house here, so that would be legal.) This is a purple state; they'll need our votes. We're moving to a navy-blue one, where our votes will have less impact.

You can't contribute to a given campaign, nor probably to the national party. But there are many advocacy organizations that would be happy to have your support. We joined the ACLU the day after Election Day.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Further to the "revelations" in the Wolff book:

Interesting discussion on the BBC News Channel last evening with various commentators and journalists. While all said that Wolff's journalistic credentials could best be described as mixed, in relation to the book Bronwen Maddox pointed out that not one of the named sources in the book has gone so far as to claim that they didn't express the sentiments attributed to them in the book. Of course, they also pointed out that many of the criticisms made by Wolff - narcisism, vanity, lack of intellectual curiousity, impatience, sexual impropriety, etc, etc, etc - were brought up during the 2016 campaign yet still millions of Americans voted for Trump.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's why I'm impatiently awaiting my hard copy. Artistic licence there may be, but I'm reasonably sure it paints a fair picture of the environment that is (it is to be hoped) so exceptional as to go down in history. Trump's reaction literally demonstrates it's not far off the mark, too.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Having read the first few chapters I'd say the following: The newspaper extracts were definitely the more sensationalist bits of the book - but the book itself isn't uniformly of this nature - and its strength lies in its portrayal of the overall level of dysfunction surrounding the current White House.

The personality described in the book has quite a lot of explanatory power when it comes to understanding the kinds of bombastic tweets/speeches we've seen emanating from Trump, and in that sense it has a ring of truth to it.

[ 07. January 2018, 13:09: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
So, does anyone think Trump would do well selling stuff in an Apple store?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
He would do better to retire to Mar-A-Lago, and build a bloody wall around it.

With him behind the said wall.

And no gates.

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
An excellent Guardian comment -

“Fate may yet intervene: it's not hard to imagine Trump's infantile anger sending his blood pressure to levels normally seen only in deep-sea oil wells. Indeed, perhaps the media and late night comedy have a role to play in saving civilisation from nuclear holocaust by blowing up one of those arteries already neatly sapped and mined by MacDonalds?”
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Ouch!

[Eek!]

Mind you, someone once said that death (in his case, beheading) was a sharp medicine, but a cure for all ills. Sir Walter Raleigh, perhaps?

Anyhow, although it ill behoves any of us (ITTWACW) to wish for anyone's demise, the Deus Ex Machina solution does sometimes do the trick.

IJ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
2569
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Martin, you might need to unpack that a little, as the evos say....

[Roll Eyes]

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Meanwhile, CIA Director Mike Pompeo went on TV this morning (a Fox station, of course) to say that Trump pays complete attention to CIA intelligence briefings, asks coherent questions, is unqualifiedly fit to be President, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not worthy of comment let alone discussion.

Someone is seriously deluding either himself or the public or both here. I wonder who?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Martin, you might need to unpack that a little, as the evos say....

[Roll Eyes]

IJ

I think it's the number of days T has left in office. I wouldn't bet against it, myself.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O, I see. Yes.

Hopefully, not that many.....

(I can't imagine the GOG living that long, let alone being 'president').

IJ
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
By my calculation, Martin's figure assumes that the Orange One will be in power for two terms.

Heaven help us.
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, CIA Director Mike Pompeo went on TV this morning (a Fox station, of course) to say that Trump pays complete attention to CIA intelligence briefings, asks coherent questions, is unqualifiedly fit to be President ...

I thought the idea had been to put sentient beings in the upper echelons of Trump's administration to protect the world from his idiocy, but this bloke is clearly, as Miss Amanda said, just as deluded as his boss.

[Eek!]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have a friend, a senior editor at a major publisher in New York City. She says that Holt, not being fools, had lawyers go over every sentence in that book. Every sentence is backed up by notes or recordings. The lawyers looked at every note and listened to every recording.
For a controversial book this level of ass-coverage is merely standard procedure. It takes no especial foresight to predict that Crooked Don would want to sue. It is his first and favorite weapon, after namecalling.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It takes no especial foresight to predict that Crooked Don would want to sue. It is his first and favorite weapon, after namecalling.

Handy counter.

Meanwhile I see Theresa May is sure that Trump is
quote:
taking decisions on what he believes is in the best interest of the United States
(repeat this talking-point ad nauseam - she keeps coming back to it in that clip). She is so weak. And Trump is such a fool for not seeing how fast he is eroding US credibility around the world.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
this bloke is clearly, as Miss Amanda said, just as deluded as his boss.

[Eek!]

Of course, the CIA has raised the art of lying to unimaginable new heights.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Could I ask a question for Transatlantic shipmates please? It's difficult to get any feel for this from over here.

USian shipmates, understandably, detest the Orange Monster. It's difficult not to. To us over here, being cynical, world weary denizens of the Old World, anyone who describe themselves as “a very stable genius” and says of themselves "my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart”, is giving strong evidence of the opposite. Michael Wolff seems to us to be confirming no more than that the inside of the Trump court is much as we've already assumed it to be.

And it's clear that there are a lot of people on both the east and the west coast, who feel much the same, who are horrified at their country and everything they have always though it stood for, being wrecked.

But?

Is there still a huge swathe of Middle-America, simple home-spun folk in the flyover states, who go to church on Sunday, say grace before every meal and dutifully read their Patriot's Bible complete with commentary, who think this criticism is all unpatriotic sour grapes, fake news, or how they want their president to be anyway? Do they think his tweets just show he's a regular guy who is like them?

Can anyone who is over there and has the pulse of America, tell me?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Tangent alert - this won't mean much to USian shipmates

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Meanwhile I see Theresa May is sure that Trump is
quote:
taking decisions on what he believes is in the best interest of the United States
(repeat this talking-point ad nauseam - she keeps coming back to it in that clip). She is so weak. And Trump is such a fool for not seeing how fast he is eroding US credibility around the world.
By saying that, she lowers the respect anyone can give for her political competence still further, as in inter alia

- not sacking Johnson, on several occasions,
- giving ministerial responsibility to Grayling, for anything - a man who seems to wreck everything he touches.
- giving Toby Young a job. What favour can anyone possibly owe him? And if they do, they shouldn't have got into that position.
- lodging the Article 50 notice and so losing any sort of control over her negotiations with the EU.

And, I'm neither a socialist nor a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Continuing on the tangent briefly.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

- giving Toby Young a job. What favour can anyone possibly owe him? And if they do, they shouldn't have got into that position.

My theory on this is that this sort of thing is red meat for the more extreme Brexit faction who are involved in the phony-war for leadership. At the same time as they lose support from business, they are - somewhat half-hardheartedly - trying to shore up their vote by playing in a culture-war direction (see also language of saboteurs, traitors etc).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Could I ask a question for Transatlantic shipmates please? It's difficult to get any feel for this from over here.

USian shipmates, understandably, detest the Orange Monster. It's difficult not to. To us over here, being cynical, world weary denizens of the Old World, anyone who describe themselves as “a very stable genius” and says of themselves "my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart”, is giving strong evidence of the opposite. Michael Wolff seems to us to be confirming no more than that the inside of the Trump court is much as we've already assumed it to be.

And it's clear that there are a lot of people on both the east and the west coast, who feel much the same, who are horrified at their country and everything they have always though it stood for, being wrecked.

But?

Is there still a huge swathe of Middle-America, simple home-spun folk in the flyover states, who go to church on Sunday, say grace before every meal and dutifully read their Patriot's Bible complete with commentary, who think this criticism is all unpatriotic sour grapes, fake news, or how they want their president to be anyway? Do they think his tweets just show he's a regular guy who is like them?

Can anyone who is over there and has the pulse of America, tell me?

If you will click on a POST link, try this: thinking like a Trump supporter.

One of the Post columnists, a Gary Abernathy, is a diehard Trump supporter. Here's the list of all his columns. It is only fair to say that he lives in Ohio.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Thanks for that article in the Post Brenda. I'd like to look at Chavez one day, but I have too much on my plate to put him on the list right now. Chavez used to be praised by the left here, but either they changed their mind or I stopped subscribing to New Internationalist. Anyway, I was surprised by the comparison between Trump and Chavez.

quote:
This is not a call for appeasement, only for efficiency. If dwelling on scandal too much can be counterproductive, then the focus must be elsewhere. I believe it should rest on understanding and empathizing with the grievances that brought Trump to power (wage stagnation, cultural isolation, a depleted countryside, the opioid crisis). Trump’s solutions may be imaginary, but the problems are very real. Populism is and has always been the daughter of political despair. Showing concern is the only way to break the rhetorical polarization.
I think Democrats have a very good understanding of these issues, and have tried to address them as much as they could at a Federal level, and in states like California. Certainly Americans in this thread seem to have a good handle on this.

As has been said often on this thread, poor white people voted against their interest if they voted Republican last time. I think they did that because over the last decade or so the right wing media did a great job selling them the big Republican lie: that small Govt and a big business sector means a strong America.

I suspect however that poor white resistance to progressive political programmes is not a new phenomena in America. The Phil Ochs song Links on the Chain (1965) criticises white unionists for actively opposing the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's.

It is nice to be nice. American society looks as polarised as it has ever been, save perhaps at the time of the Civil War. It is a very good thing to reduce ill-feeling and division, and it might even win some votes. But as the author of the article mentions in relation to Alabama, its getting out its own vote that will get the Democrats back on the good foot.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
They're closing a Pennsylvania coal mine. On the radio they interviewed some of the people who voted for Lyin' Don because he was going to "Bring Back Coal." From the piece:

GARCIA-NAVARRO: What are people thinking about the president these days?

ZIMMERMAN: You know, people aren't boasting as much as they did during the election. You know, he's going to bring coal back, and he's going to do this. Well, he hasn't. And at least in some of the meetings I've been in, it was - he was just saying what people wanted to hear to get elected. And I sincerely believe that.

So they're becoming aware that they were played for suckers by a slick New York con man. It remains to see what they'll do about it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They're closing a Pennsylvania coal mine.

So they're becoming aware that they were played for suckers by a slick New York con man. It remains to see what they'll do about it.

Played for suckers. That's the key phrase for 2018. It's hard for folks to admit who the real crook was in 2016, but you don't have to say so openly. Just vote differently this year.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Michael Wolff, author of the book we've been talking about, is going to be on Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" Monday night. Don't know whether it will be an actual interview, or a "hey, so you wrote this book everyone's talking about". Even for the latter, Stephen usually gets in a couple of pithy questions or remarks.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Trying to be fair to Mrs May, aren't the key words in the quote 'he believes'? What's good for Trump must be good for the USA, mustn't it?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They're closing a Pennsylvania coal mine. On the radio they interviewed some of the people who voted for Lyin' Don because he was going to "Bring Back Coal." From the piece:

GARCIA-NAVARRO: What are people thinking about the president these days?

ZIMMERMAN: You know, people aren't boasting as much as they did during the election. You know, he's going to bring coal back, and he's going to do this. Well, he hasn't. And at least in some of the meetings I've been in, it was - he was just saying what people wanted to hear to get elected. And I sincerely believe that.

So they're becoming aware that they were played for suckers by a slick New York con man. It remains to see what they'll do about it.

Yeah but he's THEIR slick New York con man, he speaks their language, he feels their pain, it was congress, the ecoterrorists shut the mine down.

2568.

Unless he does an FDR of course.

4029.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So they're becoming aware that they were played for suckers by a slick New York con man. It remains to see what they'll do about it.

I'm not sure that's the case. A conventional politician wins office by promising to improve the lives of his or her constituents. It always seemed to me that the main appeal of Donald Trump was his promise to smite his supporters' enemies. "Lock her up!" "Build the wall!". Etc.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He just asked for $18 billion in funding for that wall. I wonder what happened to the notion of making Mexico pay for it.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He just asked for $18 billion in funding for that wall. I wonder what happened to the notion of making Mexico pay for it.

I believe the official line is that Mexico will pay for The Wall™ . . . eventually. Congress just needs to fork over enough money to get the process started.

And yes, this sounds exactly like some of the more notorious scams out there.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But how exactly is The Great Ga-Ga Goblin going to make Mexico pay for The Wall?

Invade?

Nuke Mexico City?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But how exactly is The Great Ga-Ga Goblin going to make Mexico pay for The Wall?

Invade?

Nuke Mexico City?

[Paranoid]

IJ

The Stable Genius will find some way of getting Enrique Nieto's Amex number. Put on a fake accent, tell him he's won a luxury weekend at Mar-a-Lago, and he just has to pay an admin fee.

No more fraudulent than Trump University.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But how exactly is The Great Ga-Ga Goblin going to make Mexico pay for The Wall?

Invade?

Nuke Mexico City?

[Paranoid]

IJ

If he were to follow his prior pattern, he'd contract with a Mexican construction firm, purchase materials from Mexican suppliers, and hire Mexican workers to build the wall, and then claim bankruptcy to avoid paying them for their labor. It's a proven method, apparently.

[ 08. January 2018, 15:57: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I'm sure the canny Mexicans, Bad Hombres though they be, will think of a way to scupper Mr. Stablegenius' plan....

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
And BBC News reports that the Evil Emperor is now directing his insane hatred towards Salvadoreans.

More Bad Hombres, presumably?

Soon, only Orange People will be allowed to live and work in his dystopian Empire....

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
They are brown people. With no money. Nothing more needed. (See Puerto Rico.)

This has also been done in the past few days, using the 'very stable genius' line. But the Post-Modern Major General image is a natural. G&S, the gift that keeps on giving.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
The primarily Salvadorian street gang MS-13 has been one of this administration's go-tos when it needs an example of the dangers of immigrants, so it really comes as no surprise that they took the first chance they had to kick as many Salvadorians out of the country as possible, gang members or not.

Never mind that they are going home to a country that, in many ways, is still reeling from the civil war that we helped to fund.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
But, if (somewhat inconceivably from my perspective, but still if) Mueller and his mob interview Trump and he emerges squeaky clean, the Very Stable Genius Personification of Goodness™ that he believes he is, where to then?

(Apologies to those of you who can't penetrate Wapo's paywall, buts basically it's just outlining Thwumple's legal eagles and their probable response to Mueller) ... is it all just lay down misère and we accept that #45 is indeed the Second Coming of Jesus?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Dobson just put out a call for prayer and fasting, to defeat the dark forces that are working towards Crooked Don't impeachment. I am thrilled to hear that Dobson has such a line to the Almighty -- a real threat of impeachment, wow! Talk about an answer to prayer!

The solution is 300 days away. November, 2018. If we can flip one or both houses of Congress, Lyin' Don can be essentially emasculated even if he isn't impeached outright.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
What happens to the young Salvadoreans, who are (I assume), US citizens?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
They can't be proper Usanians, they're Bad Brown Hombres!

The Orange Lord Of Mercy, Goodness, and Light has given them until 2019 to either find a way of staying, or of leaving, so (O Happy Thought!) by then His Lordiness will be in jail.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What happens to the young Salvadoreans, who are (I assume), US citizens?

Anyone born in the U.S. is an American citizen and cannot be involuntarily deported. So if they're a minor whose parents are deported the family is forced to decide whether to take the kids with them or make arrangements to break up the family. From CNN:

quote:
There's also another group experts say will be affected: nearly 200,000 US citizen children of Salvadoran parents with TPS.

"Our family will break apart. ... What am I going to do now?" said Chavez, who is raising two stepchildren and a cousin in Houston. "How can I tell them that I have to go?"


 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It always seemed to me that the main appeal of Donald Trump was his promise to smite his supporters' enemies. "Lock her up!" "Build the wall!". Etc.

Still a con, of course.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This has also been done in the past few days, using the 'very stable genius' line. But the Post-Modern Major General image is a natural. G&S, the gift that keeps on giving.

I've seen two different productions of HMS Pinafore in the past 18 months where Sir Joseph Porter, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was obviously Trump (complete with yellow wig). But I absolutely love this Modern Major General patter song!
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So if they're a minor whose parents are deported the family is forced to decide whether to take the kids with them or make arrangements to break up the family.

I mean no offence USAians, I come from a place where we lock our refugees up on Pacific Islands in the hope they give up and return home, but I weep.

I understand it is complex. I understand these permissions are "temporary", which means it will come to an end. But while people are temporarily settled the world moves on, babies are born, kids grow up... There has to be a better answer.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
How does the Evil Orange Goblin manage to sleep at nights?

Next thing, he'll be trying to deport mixed-race ex-presidents...

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
But while people are temporarily settled the world moves on, babies are born, kids grow up... There has to be a better answer.

You get that, and a lot of us get that. But when you can make political hay by putting scary black and white pictures of young Salvadorian men with lots of facial tatoos on the TV screen and telling people in the suburbs that these thugs are out to get them if they aren't deported tomorrow, it's too much for some candidates to resist.

(This advertisement was actually a major part of the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia's campaign. The DC area has a fairly large population from Central America- when the US Association Football team plays El Salvador or Honduras in DC, it's not necessarily a friendly home crowd. Luckily, the advertisement was a failure, and the candidate has since expressed regret for green-lighting it.)

[ 08. January 2018, 21:01: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
How does the Evil Orange Goblin manage to sleep at nights?

Next thing, he'll be trying to deport mixed-race ex-presidents...

[Eek!]

IJ

He wishes. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
Of course, the Obamas would be more than welcome in many countries.

Or would he want to deport all former Presidents? (And Vice Presidents--I can't imagine he's fond of Al Gore.)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
How does the Evil Orange Goblin manage to sleep at nights?

All the evidence suggests he doesn't. And when he can't sleep, he tweets.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
We always knew that the pro-life interest in life ended at the moment of birth. So it's no surprise that the fate of brown children is completely uninteresting. It's dreadfully short-sighted, however. Because these brown kids are indeed born in the USA, American citizens. Sometime, in ten, twelve years, they'll be old enough to vote. Guess how that's going to go.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
So is Oprah2020 a summer (or winter) fill-in? I'm not comparing, but after 1 celebrity I would've thought people were swinging back to wanting politicians in the job...

I suppose she could have benefits..."Everyone wins a car!" [Biased]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I mean no offence USAians [snip]

What the fuck are "USAians" then, that you're so solicitous of their feelings?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I'd like to see her challenge a safe Republican for a spot in Congress. Paul Ryan?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I'm more a fan of Oprah than a not-fan, and she did start out as a journalist, so has whatever gravitas-lite that may afford, but I seriously hope she stays out of politics (aside from donating hefty sums to some sane, capable, squeaky-clean, non-Republican statesperson, if one can be found).

For two -- maybe three? -- Presidential cycles now, the Republicans have trotted out hordes of wannabes that make it look like one major tenet of Republicanism is that any damn fool can be President as long as they can talk donors into funding their campaigns.

And guess what? A damn fool is what we've now got.

I'm not saying Oprah is a fool; she's not. But I doubt she's statesperson material either. Please: no more business moguls in the Oval Office, at least for a generation.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It makes me queasy to contemplate any more celeb candidates with media empires but zero political experience. She can run if she wants but I won't vote for someone who doesn't have some miles on the odometer. She would be far more effective shilling for a candidate (as she did for Obama, remember) and I'd even tolerate her as vice president. But not the head of the ticket. We've been there, done that and the tee shirt is horrible.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I believe you have to live in the state, a district of which you wish to represent. Paul Ryan represents Wisconsin's First Congressional District. Oprah Winfrey (according to Wikipedia) maintains residences in California, New Jersey, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois and Florida.

Great idea, though. But Congress has a way of swallowing celebrities and spitting them out. Look at Al Franken.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Oprah is popular because she is relatively apolitical.

If she runs for the Democrats, I suspect she would not be universally welcomed by some on the left of the party. There is an unspoken belief among some on the left that Oprah plays to a conservative ideology of self-reliance and would not speak for minorities and lower-income Americans who rely on the Welfare State. After all, according to some, isn't Oprah proof that you don't need government assistance to go from rags to riches?

[ 09. January 2018, 01:19: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
For that matter Crooked Don asserted today that he is a genius and a self-made billionaire. (The inheritance from his father, ignore it.) I don't ever want to see a self-made magnate in office ever again.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
To the question of how people in the Midwest, the flyover states, are feeling about Trump.

People in Michigan are not happy. There is a lot of cross-border trade with Canada that may be threatened if he cancels NAFTA. He is not living up to his promises to them. The automobile industry is not coming back to Detroit.

People in Iowa and surrounding states are seeing their grain prices going down because Mexico will not by buying American grain anymore. Mexico will be getting it from Argentina.

Even though I live in a state that went for Clinton, farmers on the east side were hoping he would not cancel the Trans-Pacific Partnership since most of our agricultural products go to Asain markets. If the Eastside were its own state we would be largely red.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I believe you have to live in the state, a district of which you wish to represent. Paul Ryan represents Wisconsin's First Congressional District. Oprah Winfrey (according to Wikipedia) maintains residences in California, New Jersey, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois and Florida.

Great idea, though. But Congress has a way of swallowing celebrities and spitting them out. Look at Al Franken.

That's more or less how celebs are treated here if they want to go into politics. We don't have a Presidential system YET, so the major parties often use high-profile recruits to try and win a seat off the other side. That's not always true of course.

This guy was my favorite celebrity MP.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I believe Oprah's primary residence is in California. Therefore she is likely to be registered to vote in California.

Curiously, our constitution does not specifically require one to be registered to vote anywhere (though I think it is assumed) only that they are natural born citizens.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Will be interesting to see what T does for the State of the Union address. (Is that this month?) Or if he even does it. But IIRC it's required by the Constitution.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Will be interesting to see what T does for the State of the Union address. (Is that this month?) Or if he even does it. But IIRC it's required by the Constitution.

AIR (from watching The West Wing years ago), he's not obliged to give a speech, he just has to inform Congress of the state of the union "from time to time". He could send them a written report (though that would require literacy) or just buy them a subscription to the Post.

[ 09. January 2018, 08:04: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
It's traditional to do it in a full gathering of Congress, as a speech, in the evening. And televised.

Watching the attendees can be entertaining and educational: fury, delight, applause, none, standing ovation, glued to their chair. Occasionally, someone will actually make a negative remark. I think someone called Obama "Liar!". And I think there was something with the Supreme Court communicating disfavor. Possibly the late Chief Justice Anthony Scalia.

I suppose he could broadcast it to the audience from the family quarters. People would be non-plussed. If he broadcast from Mar-a-Lago, hell would likely break loose.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Obviously his preferred method of delivering the State of the Union address would be to tweet it. Unless Congress could guarantee everyone would behave like his devoted followers and hang adoringly on his every word, he would probably prefer not to make a public address given a choice.

[ 09. January 2018, 08:23: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Curiously, Trump seemed to forget some of the words of the Star Spangled Banner last night. I was up late, watching Alabama-Geogia (what a game!) and was surprised to see his failure to sing all the words during the opening ceremony.

Weird, really. He couldn't even get that right.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Obviously his preferred method of delivering the State of the Union address would be to tweet it. Unless Congress could guarantee everyone would behave like his devoted followers and hang adoringly on his every word, he would probably prefer not to make a public address given a choice.

"I've made America great again. Best ever. Good night!"
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Curiously, Trump seemed to forget some of the words of the Star Spangled Banner last night. I was up late, watching Alabama-Geogia (what a game!) and was surprised to see his failure to sing all the words during the opening ceremony.

Weird, really. He couldn't even get that right.

It’s not weird at all if he’s in the early stages of dementia.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Professional politicians understand the risk of offence and avoid it. Either by standing mute (hand on heart) or by making the lips move. But I guess that's just another thing Trump doesn't know, or doesn't care about, or just forgot.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Will be interesting to see what T does for the State of the Union address.

The Democrats should boycott it. If any do show up, they should heckle. It would be interesting to see if he has his thugs clear them out as he did while campaigning.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Nonono. It's the GOP who's crassly rude to sitting Presidents. (Remember the 'you lie!' guy? I can't remember whether he lost his office for sexual hijinks or mere corruption...)
I am certain the Democrats will sit nicely in their seats, eyes glittering with vulpine joy, hands in their laps, lips pressed together. If your foe is deep in a hole and insists on digging, no action is called for. You sit back and let him do it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
As Napoleon Bonaparte said, 'Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake'.

Wise words, from one of the world's greatest statesmen.

IMHO, anyway.

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Remember the 'you lie!' guy? I can't remember whether he lost his office for sexual hijinks or mere corruption.

Joe Wilson, and he still sits, although not comfortably.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh good -- I hope he's at the State of the Union, writhing in shame.
The other charming possibility is text commentary, of which I am sure there will be tons. All those cell phones in the laps, noting every lie, every misspoken word, every idiocy. You don't have to shout. You can tweet.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And I think there was something with the Supreme Court communicating disfavor. Possibly the late Chief Justice Anthony Scalia.

That was Alito, mouthing “that’s not true” at Obama’s characterization of the Citizens United case.

I can’t imagine that Alito particularly enjoyed Obama’s speeches in general. There was always a point where Obama would talk about how qualified judicial nominees shouldn’t be filibustered. Alito certainly remembers that Senator Obama joined in the attempted filibuster of his nomination. (Obama, to his credit, has recently expressed regret for that vote. Alito may not be your ideal Justice in terms of his philosophy, but he certainly has the professional qualifications for the job.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
To the question of how people in the Midwest, the flyover states, are feeling about Trump.

People in Michigan are not happy. There is a lot of cross-border trade with Canada that may be threatened if he cancels NAFTA. He is not living up to his promises to them. The automobile industry is not coming back to Detroit.

People in Iowa and surrounding states are seeing their grain prices going down because Mexico will not by buying American grain anymore. Mexico will be getting it from Argentina.

Even though I live in a state that went for Clinton, farmers on the east side were hoping he would not cancel the Trans-Pacific Partnership since most of our agricultural products go to Asain markets. If the Eastside were its own state we would be largely red.

I don’t buy that any of this will cause mass defections from Trump 2020. Regardless of what polls and anecdotes tell you now, I think it’s a safe bet that Trump is going to get somewhere between 45 and 48% of the vote in 2020. So it’s going to be down to turnout in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
[digression]
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I mean no offence USAians [snip]

What the fuck are "USAians" then, that you're so solicitous of their feelings?
I wouldn't have thought the answer to that was difficult. In many circles it is considered a useful reference point to avoid the nationalistic assumptions of "Americans," which throws up a few issues around the remaining inhabitants of the Americas.

[/digression]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I suspect that Dave W. gets that. It's just that this comes up at least once a quarter (maybe we're due? who knows...), and some Shipmates who reside in the USA have observed on those multiple occasions that "USAsians" frequently seems to be employed around here not out of concern for people in Uruguay, but rather as a wind-up.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Well, color me surprised (not): Arpaio is running for the U.S. Senate from Arizona.

Story here.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I read today that Senator Feinstein (D) has released the transcript of the 10-hour Fusion GPS interview. The actual document is available. I expect many interesting excerpts to appear.

Trump has tweeted that he can beat Oprah Winfrey if she is nominated against him in 2020. As usual, his statement seems unmotivated; if he thinks it is true, then he ought to be tweeting the exact opposite, hoping she will be nominated.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He has a spiritual advisor! Unfortunately she's a prosperity gospel grifter.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I read today that Senator Feinstein (D) has released the transcript of the 10-hour Fusion GPS interview. The actual document is available. I expect many interesting excerpts to appear.

If you can't wait for the excerpts the whole document is here [PDF]. If you're interested check it out before Senator Grassley has it taken down from Feinstein's outward-facing Senate page.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I suspect that Dave W. gets that. It's just that this comes up at least once a quarter (maybe we're due? who knows...), and some Shipmates who reside in the USA have observed on those multiple occasions that "USAsians" frequently seems to be employed around here not out of concern for people in Uruguay, but rather as a wind-up.

Dave W, and others:

Sorry. It was not my intent. I was just thinking of terms for Americans and that popped in my head; the thought of it expressing some distate for the term "American" for a resident of the States was not in my mind. I'll be more careful in the future.

[ 09. January 2018, 20:23: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you can't wait for the excerpts the whole document is here

I did ctrl+F for Trump and have started reading on the second mention, around page 67.
[Eek!]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Well, color me surprised (not): Arpaio is running for the U.S. Senate from Arizona. Story here.

Your link did not work. Did you test it before posting? (I fixed it in my quote of your post.)
The man is 85 years old. I doubt he could make it up the Capitol steps. Many Arizonans are apparently not thrilled at the news.

A comment from someone in the item I linked to (which works, I think) says it all:

quote:
Joe Arpaio is an 85 year old man that was just pardoned by Donald Trump. If the GOP even gives this nutjob the time of day in his apparent Senate run, they haven't learned a thing from Roy Moore.

 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This quote from the transcript gets the heart of why I'm impatient to read Fire and Fury:
quote:
when you evaluate human intelligence, human reporting, field reporting, source reporting, you know, it's sort of like when you're a journalist and you're trying to figure out who's telling the truth, right. You don't really decide who's telling the truth. You decide whether the person is credible, right, whether they know what they're talking about, whether there's other reasons to believe what they're saying, whether anything they've said factually matches up with something in the public record

 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Thanks for your fix; yours works.

I am appalled at the number of "love Sheriff Joe" comments.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
1) Yes, Herr Drump could not even finish the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner. Most Americans cannot even get beyond the first verse, though. Maybe he had a lot on his (little) mind.

Sometime earlier in the day, I guess, he was speaking at a conservative meeting and he said, in so many words, aren't you glad that I let you vote for me? [Projectile]

On a positive side today, Drump met with congressional leaders on both sides for a televised negotiating session on the Immigration policy. The Democrats really pressed him on several issues, but he kept deflecting and said it was up to the leaders of both parties to come up with a bill and he will sign it. Obviously, the session was televised to show that Drump has all his faculties. [brick wall]

Another negative that happened yesterday was the Homeland Security people have said El Salvadorans who have had temporary status in the US now have to leave once their last 18-month pass is up. El Salvadorans had to report to immigration services every 18 months to up date their status. That ended as of yesterday.

Many Salvadorans have been here for nearly a generation. They have bought homes. They have started business here. They have been gainfully employed and have paid their taxes faithfully (as opposed to Drump) and they have raised families here. Now they have to give it all up. Some kids are in American colleges and they would hate to see their parents being forced to leave. Listening to an NPR talk show today, someone from Canada called in and said they would likely be welcomed up North. I certainly hope that is true.

Whose next? Haitians.

Going to which states will likely vote for Trump Three states have been mentioned above: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I think Pennsylvania and Florida will likely flip. Pennsylvania has long been considered a blue state. Trump promised he will reopen their coal mines. It is not happening.

Fact is, more of the mines are closing. It won't take long for the miners to see their best option will be to elect someone who can provide retraining into newer jobs. Did you know there are more people working in wind generation industries than the coal industry at this time--and they are getting pretty good wages.

Florida is usually considered a toss-up state. There are a lot of Puerto Ricans that have fled the island for Florida. And if the Republicans dare to reduce Social Security and Medicare, watch out. Last time someone tried that they got burned pretty badly. Florida will be blue next time.

Ohio has long been Republican because of its pro-business positions. I think it just might be a toss-up next time. Drump's policies have hurt Ohio's agricultural sector. Kasich thinks Drump is a con man. Abd there is a very serious challenge in the Supreme Court about how Ohio has been purging its voter registrations which may allow more minorities to vote.

Other states that will likely flip are Michigan and Wisconson. They have a history of voting Democrat in past elections.

Now to Joe Arpaio. While Joe has easily won the rural county he ruled over, it is much different winning over Pheonix and Tuscan plus other places that are heavily Hispanic. He is going down, but if he divides the Republican party, the Democrats will take that seat.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I knew I had a better link for the query about How Conservatives Are Thinking, and here it is. Slate has a daily summary "Today in Conservative Media."
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He has a spiritual advisor! Unfortunately she's a prosperity gospel grifter.

Good grief! Shades of tele-evangelist Oral Roberts. Though I don't think he ever threatened his followers. There was a period, maybe towards the end of his life, when he said "God said if you don't send money, God will take me home". He really seemed to believe it.

This grifter person said she knows it's a big ask, but that God always provides, etc. If that's so, why doesn't God just give *her* the money, rather than taking it from working and (probably) retired people?

[Projectile]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Thanks, Ian Climacus - I appreciate it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He has a spiritual advisor! Unfortunately she's a prosperity gospel grifter.

Good grief! Shades of tele-evangelist Oral Roberts. Though I don't think he ever threatened his followers. There was a period, maybe towards the end of his life, when he said "God said if you don't send money, God will take me home". He really seemed to believe it.

This grifter person said she knows it's a big ask, but that God always provides, etc. If that's so, why doesn't God just give *her* the money, rather than taking it from working and (probably) retired people?

[Projectile]

This...person...thinks she can sell salvation (Raw Story).
[Roll Eyes]

And I wonder if Melania has seen the pic of her husband and this woman? (At the top of that page.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Yes, Herr Drump could not even finish the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner. Most Americans cannot even get beyond the first verse, though. Maybe he had a lot on his (little) mind.

When have you ever even heard the latter verses? I have maybe twice. In my 50-mumble year life.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now to Joe Arpaio. While Joe has easily won the rural county he ruled over, it is much different winning over Pheonix and Tuscan plus other places that are heavily Hispanic. He is going down, but if he divides the Republican party, the Democrats will take that seat.

Joe was the Sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and all of the cities that surround it. Only the outskirts are rural.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Trump's annual physical is Friday, and some mental health professionals want him to get a psych eval. (That's not scheduled, though.)

Will he show up for his physical?
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
1) Yes, Herr Drump could not even finish the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner. Most Americans cannot even get beyond the first verse, though. Maybe he had a lot on his (little) mind.

When have you ever even heard the latter verses? I have maybe twice. In my 50-mumble year life.
I know a guy (friend of my late grandmother) who is well-known for taking over the microphone at benefit dinners and leading the crowd in song. He always manages to work in one of the latter verses. But unless you hang out with that guy, never. (Although there is apparently a reference in the third verse to beating back slaves who joined the British in 1812, so there’s likely good reason.)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just out of interest, I turned to Wikipedia for the lyrics.

Frankly, I'm not surprised to learn that few people can sing the whole thing from memory....

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'll see your Star Spangled Banner and raise you the Marseillaise
quote:
Let impure blood
Water our furrows

(hmm, maybe we need a "crappy national anthems" thread in Dead Horses...)
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
On a positive side today, Drump met with congressional leaders on both sides for a televised negotiating session on the Immigration policy. The Democrats really pressed him on several issues, but he kept deflecting and said it was up to the leaders of both parties to come up with a bill and he will sign it. Obviously, the session was televised to show that Drump has all his faculties.

Not so much "deflecting" as agreeing with everyone, even if it means contradicting what he said when he agreed with the last person.

quote:
Yet over nearly an hour, and with television cameras running, Trump took nearly every conceivable position in the debate: He backed a “clean” bill to extend DACA, protect the so-called “Dreamers,” and bolster border security, absent the more controversial immigration measures conservatives want; then, he said he’d “take the heat” for a more comprehensive immigration overhaul along the lines of what Trump had denounced as a candidate in 2016; later, he demanded that Congress fund the southern border wall as part of the initial DACA deal, reinserting the wrench that has held up the immigration talks for weeks.

Finally, Trump said he’d sign whatever immigration bill Congress could send him. “I’m not saying I want this or I want that. I will sign it,” he told the group.

By the time the president finally kicked reporters out of the meeting, he had said yes to everyone while clarifying virtually nothing. And what was undeniably a victory for government transparency had turned into another frustrating experience for Republicans, who repeatedly implored Trump to tell them exactly what he would accept in a DACA bill.

If you want to watch the video for yourself you can find it here (and probably other places on the internet).

Isn't just agreeing with whatever you're being told a coping mechanism for those dealing with dementia? I can see why his staff are nervous about the prospect of Trump giving a statement to Robert Mueller. I'm more nervous about what happens when he's alone in a room with Vladimir Putin.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The problem is not getting him to agree to stuff. He'll agree. The problem is getting him to stick to it, because (as you can see) he'll agree with the next person with a different angle. He has all the leadership of a piece of boiled macaroni.

But, to brighten your day, this is
purely fun, from the incomparable Alexandra Petri.

It begins, "I am a lidless eye of flame that burns with violent hatred for all it gazes upon. My house is a volcano, and I command several armies of orcs. For many years, I have feared this would disqualify me from holding public office.

As an immortal being who demands the sacrifice of children and cannot abide the light of day, I had resigned myself to never serving in the Senate. Certainly not as a Republican, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower, no matter how strongly I felt about tax reform."
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Surely Vlad would not be so daft as to be alone with The Great Goblin?

He (Vlad) would doubtless have one or two reliable witnesses ensconced behind a screen, or something, with hi-tech recording/video equipment, all complete, and got up regardless.

[Two face]

Re National Anthems, at least the Marseillaise is singable, and (IMHO) has a jolly good tune - which brings to mind that wonderful scene from Casablanca.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
BTW, comparing The Orange One to the Dark Lord, Sauron The Great, is an insult to His Darkship, which has been duly noted, and passed on via the palantir which I happen to have by me.

(A palantir is a 'Seeing Stone', a sort of crystal, employed as a method of communication found in Lord Of The Rings, and turned to Evil Uses by Sauron).

I'll get me Elvish cloak...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Trump's annual physical is Friday,

Will he show up for his physical?

In body, if not in mind.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'll see your Star Spangled Banner and raise you the Marseillaise
quote:
Let impure blood
Water our furrows

(hmm, maybe we need a "crappy national anthems" thread in Dead Horses...)
If you ever want to fall down a delightful Wikipedia hole, seek out the literal English translations (usually helpfully annotated by some dedicated Wiki editor) of various African national anthems. Highlight:
quote:
Senegal, we take on your great work:
To shelter the chicks from the falcons..,

Now to get this post back on track, I guess one of the biggest losers in the Sheriff Joe announcement is Kelli Ward, who was running on an America first, anti-immigrant platform. When you are going for the racist wing of your party and a racist with better name recognition jumps in, it doesn’t bode well for your election prospects...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
BTW, comparing The Orange One to the Dark Lord, Sauron The Great, is an insult to His Darkship, which has been duly noted, and passed on via the palantir which I happen to have by me.

For those who are interested, there is a long-running comparison of Trump to another Tolkien character on Twitter.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Presumably inspired by this?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Personally I would have picked Lotho Sackville-Baggins.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Presumably inspired by this?

Possibly the other way around. The Gollum J. Trump Twitter feed dates back before the election while I think Serkis only started doing Trump tweets as read by Gollum last summer. On the other hand, it's a fairly easy and amusing connection to make so it could be just an obvious idea that occurs to multiple people.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now to Joe Arpaio. While Joe has easily won the rural county he ruled over, it is much different winning over Phoenix and Tucson plus other places that are heavily Hispanic. He is going down, but if he divides the Republican party, the Democrats will take that seat.

Joe was the Sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and all of the cities that surround it. Only the outskirts are rural.
Candidates running for Trent Franks' seat are beginning to blight our street corners with posters. I noticed one yesterday for a candidate who brags "Endorsed by Joe Arpaio." In the minds of thinking folks like myself and Pigwidgeon, that's the kiss of death, but unfortunately to the yahoos of Phoenix and the surrounding cities it's a blessing from the hand of God Almighty himself.

Tucson is in Pima County, whose sheriff has his own shitload of scandals.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
And congratulations to Trump for passing the major milestone of 2,000 (publicly stated) lies told while in office! Truly unpresidented.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a free click, cartoons in the style of Calvin & Hobbes.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Two interesting developments today.

First, Senator Ben Cardin released a minority report on Russian cyberattacks on the U.S. election system [PDF]. (For those who don't have time for the whole thing Senator Cardin also posted a section-by-section summary [PDF] of the report.) For the record there is no majority report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For whatever reason this is not something the Republican majority seems all that interested in.

Second, Robert Mueller has added a veteran cyber prosecutor to his team.

Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Curiously, Trump seemed to forget some of the words of the Star Spangled Banner last night. I was up late, watching Alabama-Geogia (what a game!) and was surprised to see his failure to sing all the words during the opening ceremony.

Weird, really. He couldn't even get that right.

It’s not weird at all if he’s in the early stages of dementia.
The traditional words to the Australian National Anthem (inclusive version) are:

"Australians all let us rehmm for hmmm mmmm ha and heee..."
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Now Drump is suing Fusion-GPS for defamation. Big problem: there will be a discovery phase (meaning Trump would have to testify under oath).

Stay tuned.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the Post, an analysis of Crooked Don's parrotting behavior. He'll agree with anything anyone says to him apparently never noticing his self contradiction from one instant to the next.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
And the Saudis and Chinese have learned the best way to deal with him is to flatter him and he will agree to anything they propose.

Deflect was not the best word of choice. I had only heard a snippet of the conversation on the radio and did not see the full video until later.

One of his gestures you see more and more when he is in conversation is him having his arms folded tightly across his chest. It suggests defensiveness and even hostility (notice how grim he looks--I just don't think he knows how to smile). When scientists have studied people with crossed arms sitting in a lecture, they have found the people retain 40% less than if they had been sitting with open arms. With Drump, I get the distinct impression he is retaining even less.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Yeah, that's our Govt's strategy too. They are desperately trying to claw back the ground they lost with the refugee swap. I doubt the revelation about Alex Downer's session with George Panadopolous (?) will have helped. He still hasn't appointed an ambassador to Australia.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now Drump is suing Fusion-GPS for defamation. Big problem: there will be a discovery phase (meaning Trump would have to testify under oath).

Stay tuned.

Not quite. Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is suing Buzzfeed for publishing the Steele dossier (which was prepared by Fusion-GPS). He claims that he has been defamed by the inclusion of his name in the Steele dossier when he personally has no connections to Russia. In short, he's suing on his own behalf, not on Trump's. It also seems like the kind of suit that will be summarily dismissed.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Calling other countries "shitholes".

Stay classy.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Yeah, that's our Govt's strategy too. They are desperately trying to claw back the ground they lost with the refugee swap. I doubt the revelation about Alex Downer's session with George Panadopolous (?) will have helped. He still hasn't appointed an ambassador to Australia.

At least there is a new ambassador from the US to Haiti, a foreign service professional, but she has not yet taken up her post. Her first interviews should be interesting.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Yeah, that's our Govt's strategy too. They are desperately trying to claw back the ground they lost with the refugee swap. I doubt the revelation about Alex Downer's session with George Panadopolous (?) will have helped. He still hasn't appointed an ambassador to Australia.

At least there is a new ambassador from the US to Haiti, a foreign service professional, but she has not yet taken up her post. Her first interviews should be interesting.
According to Anderson Cooper, tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of the Haitian earthquake. This is beyond tone deaf, and is outright racism.

At this point, I want every Democratic congressman and senator to turn their backs on him while he is jabbering in his State of the Union Address.
[Mad]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A good deal of commentary about the latest logorrhea from Lyin' Don, but I find this Post columnist especially cogent.

A bipartisan group of Congresspersons actually did achieve an immigration deal this morning, but after his tasteful comments it all went down in flames.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Calling other countries "shitholes".

Stay classy.

But as the staffer approvingly comments, "it will resonate with his base".
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Indeed. We have a minister currently appealing to his believed base on "African gangs" which is upsetting.

This continual appealing to bigots and xenophobes worries me in many ways. When Trump falls, pray let it be soon, do you think they will revolt in a, possibly violent, way, when this language disappears? Or will they skulk away?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Maybe one could make predictions about the future direction of US policy based on these soundbites.

Africa: shithole
UK: disrespectful
Netherlands: rampaging Muslims*
Various central/north American countries: drug dealers, rapists and criminals
French ladies: beautiful
Norway: our kind of people

He really isn't doing anything to challenge the idea that he's a white supremicist.

* ok this one wasn't Trump
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

This continual appealing to bigots and xenophobes worries me in many ways. When Trump falls, pray let it be soon, do you think they will revolt in a, possibly violent, way, when this language disappears? Or will they skulk away?

I was reflecting earlier about a similar question: if there was another Brexit referendum (let's say which offered a few more options than the last one), and Leave lost, would this lead to a revolt?

I appreciate the issues with the far-right are more pressing in the US, so there isn't a direct comparison. However it seems to me that even if the bad shit is reversed this will play into their agenda of grievance.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Calling other countries "shitholes".

Stay classy.

But as the staffer approvingly comments, "it will resonate with his base".
The other staffer charged with defending El Presidente is called Raj Shah. May I assume that his parents were immigrants? Was there particular bit of foreign a sh*thole or was it a nice country like Norway? Enquiring minds want to know.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Given the "Shah" last name, my guess is that he's Persian/Iranian. Not on T's favorite countries list.

However, T may not be aware of the heritage of any names, other than maybe German ones.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
May I assume that his parents were immigrants? Was there particular bit of foreign a sh*thole or was it a nice country like Norway? Enquiring minds want to know.

I guess it is fairly likely that guy is from an Indian family, and possibly/probably a wealthy one.

Trump likes wealthy Indians. But then I suspect he quite likes wealthy Africans, Mexicans and Haitians.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This has made me think 🤔

What is a ‘shithole’? A toilet or an anus? 🤔
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
whilst appreciating the mere fact that Mr Trump is now *not* coming to open the new US embassy in London, I did wince at his explanation as tweeted, that he disagreed with the Obama administration's decision to sell prime real estate for "peanuts" and move to somewhere less central. So he's not going to do it.

1) the decision was taken by the Bush administration in 2008.

2) the US embassy in Grosvenor Square was rented from the Duke of Westminster.


[Killing me]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This has made me think 🤔

What is a ‘shithole’? A toilet or an anus? 🤔

I think it could be either. But either way, it's not a good description of a place.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

2) the US embassy in Grosvenor Square was rented from the Duke of Westminster.


[Killing me]

Well it appears that the Duke refused to sell the land, instead gave them a 999 year lease. I'm not a property lawyer, but it sounds like they owned the building - otherwise what did they have to sell to the Dubai hotel developers?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Qatari not Dubai developers. Sorry, my mistake.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's a leasehold property, nothing unusual about that. So the US has sold the building. But, development of that building will need the agreement of the freeholder (in this case the Duke), in addition to all the usual planning permissions and building codes, which again isn't unusual though would make the building less valuable than would be the case if the land and building were owned outright.

One would assume that a property developer would be better informed.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Haitians:

Mia Love, a Haitian-American member of Congress, has called T out on his comments. (Well, not *literally* called out. There was no invitation to have a get-together in an alley.)

FYI: She's a Republican, from Utah.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This has made me think 🤔

What is a ‘shithole’? A toilet or an anus? 🤔

I think it could be either. But either way, it's not a good description of a place.
It's a Juju-flop situation. Life imitates art once again.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I heard that he also described the Grovesnor Square location as "the best" in London. Very good, indeed, but I would say that Canada House and South Africa House are better located, facing one another across Trafalgar Square.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I heard that he also described the Grosvenor Square location as "the best" in London. Very good, indeed, but I would say that Canada House and South Africa House are better located, facing one another across Trafalgar Square.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
I think the Cyprus High Commission would be in with a shout too - St James's Square, next to the London Library, closer than Canada or South Africa to Buck House....

Mind you, Zimbabwe House is handy for Stomp...
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It's a new normal? Lawmakers in the USA just say it's not nice to have said things like this and move on? Only talk show comedians seem to say anything worthwhile.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Here's another example of someone using the term "shithole" to describe somewhere that has too many of the wrong color people. It's even got a Norwegian angle. Is "shithole" a common code word / term of art among racists?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He is talking like the sleazy New York real estate developer, not (Christ alone knows) like a diplomat, a president, or an informed person.

Post pundits exhaustively dissect this new folly, but you need not click unless you want the obsessive details.

I am a diplomat's daughter, and will add that new Embassy buildings became a priority after 9-11 -- that's why the decision to sell the old place and get a new one was made during the Bush administration. It's almost impossible, in an older building in an older neighborhood, to achieve the kind of security perimeter you need for an embassy. Think truck bombs. You have to build new, usually a Brutalist structure (concrete) set in bleak plaza edged by bollards, and this calls for acreage that's usually not available in the posh parts of town.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Added to which, the workload (and hence staff) in embassies is constantly growing. More citizens travelling seeking help, or wanting to establish business relations in different countries etc. The news is talking about the US selling several properties in London, in addition to the old embassy building. I'm assuming that US embassy staff had been working in different locations across London, and the new building is designed to house them all (with some space for further expansion). It's probably more efficient and cost effective to have those people in one place, it's certainly going to be much easier to maintain security.
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Mind you, Zimbabwe House is handy for Stomp...

Not for long, closing soon and we still haven't seen it!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
If The Orange Father Of Lies really did say what was reported (and which, naturally, he denies), then he is not fit to hold office.

But we knew that already.

Why, O Americans, do you not rise up, and depose this evil racist? Is there really nothing you can do to rid yourselves of this incubus?

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Even if it were somehow possible for a sufficiently unpopular president to be deposed, he shouldn’t be. He was elected to office, and how cuntishly he happens to preside is your own collective fault as an electorate.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Bishop's Finger, short of actual armed rebellion, there is actually nothing the average citizen can do about him, save to lobby our elected officials to either impeach or go the 25th amendment route.

Yorrick, he did loose the popular election you know. It was the damn electoral collage that won him the position.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Whatever. You made your bed, Merkans, so lie in it.
 
Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :
 
On the plus side, his boorish behavior might just swing enough congressional seats back to the Democrats in November to shift the balance of power.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
For those who are interested in such things here is a list of all Americans who voted to elect Trump. There were 304 of them.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This has made me think 🤔

Could you please teach that skill to the Orange Ignoramus?

quote:
What is a ‘shithole’? A toilet or an anus? 🤔
That would be the Orange Ignoramus' mouth.

How is it possible for that horrible excuse for a human in the White House to continue to show his ignorance every day? Has there been even one day that he hasn't lied or displayed his racist spewings for all to see? Can he read for comprehension? Could he at least attempt to research actual facts before making incorrect judgments and tweets about them? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to those questions.

I need a basket of kittens and puppies. Or meds. I prefer the furry babies.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There is an app you can get, that swaps out Crooked Don's picture on your computer for that of a kitten, whenever it occurs.

The key moment will be November, 2018: election day. On that day, the electorate can repudiate him. He may still be President, but a Democratic House can subpoena his tax returns, compel sworn testimony. And this leads to the articles of impeachment.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
My point, above, is that why on earth don't any of the people who are present when he says "shithole" etc, say to him "you can't say that" and otherwise take him on directly at the time. Is he so magnificent and intimidating that not one person who meets with him call him out? No-one has any sort of decency in them? No-one says "you can't say 'shithole' and say other countries are shitholes". frankly if they don't call it out, they are colluding with him. Do they agree with him on all of this lunacy? They for god's sake say something directly to him! At the very time he says it.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
He's President Shithole.
 
Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :
 
Re Trump's preference for Norwegian immigrants over the wretched refuse of "teeming shores" (19th century vernacular for "shitholes"),

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-shithole-countries-norway_us_5a58199ce4b0720dc4c5b6dc?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is an app you can get, that swaps out Crooked Don's picture on your computer for that of a kitten, whenever it occurs.

I've been using that app for almost a year!
[Big Grin]

No prophet, maybe they're just afraid of his reactions. Someone has to stand up to him. Please. Someone!

He just gave an eye-roll worthy speech on TV about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Pres. Trump celebrates Martin Luther King Jr. "for standing up for the self-evident truth that Americans hold so dear, that no matter the color of our skin or the place of our birth, we are all created equal by God."
How can he stand himself? Maybe hypocrisy doesn't have the foul stench it should have.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
On the plus side, his boorish behavior might just swing enough congressional seats back to the Democrats in November to shift the balance of power.

There is a theory that this behaviour might actually fire up the populist base: "he tells it the way it is, now THAT's I guy I'll go vote for".

I wouldn't dismiss that possibility.

I said months ago that barring physical illness, I think he's on course for a second term, and I have yet to change my mind.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He clearly does not realize when he is contradicting himself, even if the first statement was mere minutes ago. So, he probably said that statement in all seriousness. It was worth exactly as much as every other word that drops from the teeny pursed lips.

A meme making the rounds, of the Statue of Liberty. The caption is, "France called, they want their statue back."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No exit yet. November. Less than 300 days away...


I am encouraged by this vigorous Republican rebuttal. (these are free clicks) We are not utterly lost, not yet.

[ 12. January 2018, 18:11: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My point, above, is that why on earth don't any of the people who are present when he says "shithole" etc, say to him "you can't say that" and otherwise take him on directly at the time. Is he so magnificent and intimidating that not one person who meets with him call him out? No-one has any sort of decency in them? No-one says "you can't say 'shithole' and say other countries are shitholes". frankly if they don't call it out, they are colluding with him. Do they agree with him on all of this lunacy? They for god's sake say something directly to him! At the very time he says it.

I was in a cabinet minister's private office many many years ago and it was common knowledge in that world that this was the job of the Executive Assistant (now called Chief of Staff, with an extraordinary increase of salary). As soon as the door was closed, the Discussion would follow. The EA would also have the job of convincing the staff not to leave (or leak), and of pacifying other ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office.

In the case of the US president, this would be the Chief of Staff's job, and he would have to make it clear that he would resign if a satisfactory resolution could not be obtained (i.e., grovelling apology). No Prophet would doubtless be as interested as I about what General Kelly said or did. To my mind, the s***hole statement should have resulted in the resignation of the Secretary of State, whose job must have become quite impossible, or of cabinet members in disgust, but the bar for decency in these matters has been... lowered.... in recent months.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a particularly cogent line in the sand. I'm encouraged that there is at last some energetic callout. But it's depressing to reflect that he's said things just as ugly before (Mexican rapists, all Haitians have AIDS, etc.) with little kickback.

And here the SurveyMonkey people categorize Trump supporters and detractors. This is hopeful.

[ 12. January 2018, 19:05: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hopeful, perhaps - but in the meantime, America is still careering wildly hither and yon on the back of a very Orange tiger.....

[Ultra confused]

.....while the rest of the world looks on in fascinated horror, wondering what the next mad tweet will be about.

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
To my mind, the s***hole statement should have resulted in the resignation of the Secretary of State, whose job must have become quite impossible, or of cabinet members in disgust, but the bar for decency in these matters has been... lowered.... in recent months.

I cling to the hope that Kelly is the one keeping Trump's finger away from the button.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
On the plus side, his boorish behavior might just swing enough congressional seats back to the Democrats in November to shift the balance of power.

There is a theory that this behaviour might actually fire up the populist base: "he tells it the way it is, now THAT's I guy I'll go vote for".

I wouldn't dismiss that possibility.

I said months ago that barring physical illness, I think he's on course for a second term, and I have yet to change my mind.

Nothing on the horizon to suggest that you should either.

The tax bill and his impact on the Judiciary will hold even the squishy edges of the GOP base in line. He's now maneuvered the dims into a DACA compromise that will fund his border plans. I don't see how they escape it at this point.

Once that's done, 2020 will be a fait accompli.

IMO.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A couple of my favorite commentators weigh in. Writer John Scalzi does not fail.
And John Pavlovitz makes the case that you can be a Christian or a Trump supporter but not both.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Stephen Colbert said "they're not from a shithole country of their president isn't trump".

I guess it wouldn't be enough for him to do an actual criminal act on camera. Failure of democracy. So bad. For shame.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
Question regarding embassies:

Do American states have representations abroad, as our Canadian provinces do? (NB: The provinces don't have a diplomatic service, as such, but they do have their own commissions, etc. in London, Paris, and I think Brussels.

Question for Croesus:

I read the list of Electors as far as Colorado, and didn't recognise a single name. Should I have done? Are any of them notable, or are they just friends of people in the state assemblies?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

Well, yes, Kelly (Bunny With An Axe) works with children, so she'd be qualified. But I wouldn't wish that job on her.
[Paranoid]

(Yes, I know you meant Gen. Kelly.)

[ 13. January 2018, 01:22: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
[QB] Question regarding embassies:

Do American states have representations abroad, as our Canadian provinces do? (NB: The provinces don't have a diplomatic service, as such, but they do have their own commissions, etc. in London, Paris, and I think Brussels.

The larger or more prosperous states might have a trade office, solely to promote business in California or New York or whatever the state is. All diplomatic and visa matters are of course handled by the embassy or consulate. If there isn't a state office you might have state officials visiting the foreign country in a group, promoting trade.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
My online news source says that the US Ambassador to Panama has resigned. Apparently, he has had enough of serving under Trump as he disagrees with the things he's asked to do.

Trump gets rid of all the best people...
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
John Pavlovitz makes the case that you can be a Christian or a Trump supporter but not both.

I suppose if you define "Christian" as "White person who hates muslims and homosexuals and believes that the sanctity of life applies only to foetuses", you're fine.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just so, adding perhaps '50+ male' to all that.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Question for Croesus:

I read the list of Electors as far as Colorado, and didn't recognise a single name. Should I have done? Are any of them notable, or are they just friends of people in the state assemblies?

There's no reason for you to recognize any of those names unless you're intimately familiar with the party politics of the state in question. Presidential electors are selected by state political parties because of their dependable loyalty and the fact that they currently hold no federal office, elected or appointed.

Despite being ostensibly selected for loyalty, 2016 was a bumper year for "faithless electors". Two Republican electors from Texas cast their ballot for someone other than Trump, and five Democratic electors voted for someone other than Clinton.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My point, above, is that why on earth don't any of the people who are present when he says "shithole" etc, say to him "you can't say that" and otherwise take him on directly at the time. Is he so magnificent and intimidating that not one person who meets with him call him out? No-one has any sort of decency in them? No-one says "you can't say 'shithole' and say other countries are shitholes". frankly if they don't call it out, they are colluding with him. Do they agree with him on all of this lunacy? They for god's sake say something directly to him! At the very time he says it.

According to this NYTimes article, Lindsey Graham pushed back in that meeting:
quote:
“America is an idea, not a race,” Mr. Graham said, according to three people familiar with the exchange on Thursday. Diversity was a strength, he said, not a weakness. And by the way, the senator added, he himself was a descendant of immigrants who came to the United States from “shithole countries with no skills.”

 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
For people of northern European stock, the longer one's family has been in this country, the more likely the original arrivals were to have been without skills. Newer (white) arrivals tend to be people who come here with tech or other in-demand skills.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A friend of mine reports that, in just these past few days, when she types the first three letters her autocorrect now offer 'shithole.' The coarsening of our discourse accelerates.

OTOH the term has a rich and ancient literary pedigree.

Post reporters dug into how the lawmakers present at that meeting responded. A great deal of oozing and toadying is taking place of course.

There are calls now for these pantywaists to grow a pair.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Report: Trump lawyer brokered S130.000 deal to prevent Porn Star from discussing their affair.
 
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :
 
No, there is no such thing as a "shithole" country.

But there is indeed a shithole party.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
For those of you not on facebook, same report here.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I'm pretty sure I shouldn't like Lindsay Graham, but I am finding it harder and harder to understand why. He looks like a very angel sent from heaven right now.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I've seen a few stories since that Alabama win suggesting that the Democrats are on track to win a majority in both houses this year. I am concerned that this is the media seeking to whip up more interest in these elections. Usually, they would barely rate a mention in Australia. I know the urge to do nasty things to Trump is strong, but does it penetrate much to people who would have ignored politics under Bush II or Obama? I'd be surprised if it did.

So how are things tracking? Is it really going to be close? My recollection is that last year, Democratic control of both houses was considered an almost impossible row to hoe.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I'm not into twitter (I don't understand how it works) but do see articles on news feeds which link and quote. This one seemed a summary of the despicableness.
quote:
Trump's guide to diversity

Africa: Array of shithole countries
Haitians: Have AIDS
Nigerians: Live in huts
Puerto Ricans: Lazy
Black Americans: Ingrates
Mexicans: Criminals and rapists
Muslims: Evil terrorists
Women: Treat them like shit
(@shannonrwatts) January 11, 2018)

Maybe it was this bad with your Nixon president but social media means we're aware and weren't then? I am lead to understand that there were a number of people present at the #Shithole discussion and most have dissimulated, saying nothing, that they didn't hear, or summarizing the comments as "tough language".

What proportion of elected officials are of what we used to call "good character", have "moral fibre", are willing to stand on principle?

Are almost all deformed of personality such that they think only of advantages for themselves? One wonders if the only reckoning is size of bank accounts. What was your revolution about again? Is crying and commisserating with you enough? Is the best that can be done is hoping for another celeb like Oprah to challange him? He's gonna have a war isn't he?

[ 14. January 2018, 05:07: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I had to look for "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
Even at the end of the earth from Drump I'm familiar with that quote..
So far nobody's rubbed the fellow's nose in that sentiment.

GG

PS It's his ignoring of climate change, very evident in my small corner, that terrifies me.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
OTOH, a number of the Democrats, including a couple of self proclaimed members of the #Resistance were happy to vote to renew a law allowing warrantless surveillance.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
The WaPo has yet another article on 45 - I'm glad they're keeping it up! -, and this one, from 13 January 2018, entitled
quote:
The ‘genius’ of Trump: What the president means when he touts his smarts
appears to give a long-term insight in his life. It's from his youth to now, and a long read. - To me, the article is a breather in these hectic times of non-stop news and utter nonsense tweets, a brief step back, and looking at things from a distance, which I think is so much needed. Phew.

Link here.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A think piece about the odds of a Democaratic sweep. The gist: getting sunnier, but still a gamble.

I think I already posted a link to a piece about the other meeting participants. Mostly the posture seems to have been on hands and knees, licking his shoe, but Sen. Dick Durbin did at least confirm the facts.

As to whether the populace at large cares -- this is unknown. There are those who will stick to him forever. But even his diehard supporters agree that he tweets too much and is not helping himself running off at the mouth.

I do believe that if those who did not vote in 2016 go to the polls, the issue will not be in doubt. Polling is consistent; this is one of the most unpopular presidents in history. But what counts is the vote.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I've seen a few stories since that Alabama win suggesting that the Democrats are on track to win a majority in both houses this year.

Yeah, and the media told us over and over again that the Fartletter-in-Chief didn't have a chance of a snowball in hell of (a) winning the primaries or (b) getting elected. And look where that got us.

I wish the media would go back to reporting the news and stop telling us what's going to happen.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
For people of northern European stock, the longer one's family has been in this country, the more likely the original arrivals were to have been without skills. Newer (white) arrivals tend to be people who come here with tech or other in-demand skills.

Except that in the sense Trump is using the term "merit" is a euphemism for "white". "Norwegian" is not a skill set. A lot of conservative pundits are throwing up a lot of smoke and pretending to be stupid about this, but what makes Trump's comments objectionable is not that he used crude language or his assessment of certain countries, it's his position that anyone from a "shithole country" cannot become a good American. Adam Serwer discusses this in greater depth:

quote:
These remarks reflect scorn not only for those who wish to come here, but those who already have. It is a president of the United States expressing his contempt for the tens of millions of descendants of Africans, most of whose forefathers had no choice in crossing the Atlantic, American citizens whom any president is bound to serve. And it is a public admission of sorts that he is incapable of being a president for all Americans, the logic of his argument elevating not just white immigrants over brown ones, but white citizens over the people of color they share this country with.
The whole thing is worth a read.

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I've seen a few stories since that Alabama win suggesting that the Democrats are on track to win a majority in both houses this year. I am concerned that this is the media seeking to whip up more interest in these elections. Usually, they would barely rate a mention in Australia. I know the urge to do nasty things to Trump is strong, but does it penetrate much to people who would have ignored politics under Bush II or Obama? I'd be surprised if it did.

So how are things tracking? Is it really going to be close? My recollection is that last year, Democratic control of both houses was considered an almost impossible row to hoe.

Brenda already covered the House of Representatives, so I'll do the Senate analysis. The prospects for the Democrats flipping the Senate looked pretty dire for most of last year. There was a 52-48 Republican majority, meaning that the Democrats had to make a net gain of 3 seats in 2018 to take control. Since only 8 of the Senate seats up for election in 2018 were held by Republicans this seemed impossible. Even assuming the Democrats could hold on to all 23 of their seats up for re-election (plus the seats of the two independent Senators who caucus with the Democrats) they'd still need to displace three sitting Republican Senators. Two looked vulnerable: Dean Heller in Nevada and Jeff Flake of Arizona. But no one could figure out a likely prospect for the Democrats taking that third seat, absent something really flukey.

Well, having a Democratic Senator from Alabama is one huge fluke. It's still far from certain that Democratic incumbents from states like Montana and North Dakota will keep their seats in 2018 but Democratic control of the U.S. Senate, which looked like a longshot at the beginning of 2017 looks more like a 50/50 proposition at the start of 2018.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Thinking of northern Europe, the USA's ambassador to Netherlands is such a sick liar one would hope the Dutch reject his credentials. To lie about what one has just said is beyond anything.

Dutch ambassador's bizarre news conference.

Stable Shithole Geniuses.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Like master, like man.

The Mad Mahdi of Maralago sure knows who to send to these third-world countries...

Has he upset and/or annoyed the Isle of Man or Iceland yet?

No? He's slipping...

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Apparently if you previously googled "shithole" and "trump" all you got were hotel reviews.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
At least one ambassador has decided that he can't stand working for this administration any more. More seriously, so many posts are vacant that government services are becoming handicapped. Not only is the man uninterested in doing the job, he is incapable of learning how to do it. It's like putting a chimpanzee behind the wheel of an SUV.

Jennifer Rubin digs with her usual expertise into the implications of this. Essentially we have a government now which can only run by ignoring the chief executive. She rightly fixes the blame upon the apologists and GOP congresspeople who are abetting his overwhelming incompetence.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Apparently if you previously googled "shithole" and "trump" all you got were hotel reviews.

Perhaps explains where he learned the word, and why he was so eager to smear someone else with it.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
After seeing this commercial, I searched to see if it had been posted on the Ship. Snopes says it appears to be an actual offer, but it's hard to believe someone out there isn't having a big laugh. So... to add some stangeness and levity (I hope) to this thread, I give you Trumpy Bear.

https://youtu.be/i9qv8RSreIM

sabine
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Apparently if you previously googled "shithole" and "trump" all you got were hotel reviews.

Now you can get this:
Trump gets "shithole" thrown back in his face: vulgarity projected onto his D.C. hotel.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
After seeing this commercial, I searched to see if it had been posted on the Ship. Snopes says it appears to be an actual offer, but it's hard to believe someone out there isn't having a big laugh. So... to add some stangeness and levity (I hope) to this thread, I give you Trumpy Bear.

https://youtu.be/i9qv8RSreIM

sabine

I think it is about as brilliant advertising as I've seen. The commercial is so finely balanced that serious Trumpites ( [Killing me] ) will take it seriously and buy it sentimentally, and Trump deriders will buy it and put pins in it or hang it in effigy.

Kudos, you Trumpy Bear entrepreneurs! [Overused]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Jennifer Rubin digs with her usual expertise into the implications of this. Essentially we have a government now which can only run by ignoring the chief executive. She rightly fixes the blame upon the apologists and GOP congresspeople who are abetting his overwhelming incompetence.

They're not only abetting his incompetence, they welcome it. The GOP wants nothing more than to destroy government, so it should come as no surprise they don't know how to operate it. Their goal is a tiny federal government controlling national defense and women's reproductive systems and nothing more.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
To add to the wonderful words of Crœsos and Brenda, I noted Nate Silver was giving the Dems 35-40% chance of winning the Senate currently.

edit: missed word

[ 14. January 2018, 21:10: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Galluping Granny--at the time the words on the Statue of Liberty were included, places like Italy, and Ireland and Scotland where considered sh-tholes. When you consider Dimwit's mother came from Scotland, she must be rolling in her grave.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
During the 1860s the German immigrants were considered to be dirty and feckless. In Little Women the girls administer a good deal of charity to starving German children -- this was in Massachusetts.

This is how it should be. One of our weapons must be stories, accounts of how we can be better and not worse than we are.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... When you consider Dimwit's mother came from Scotland, she must be rolling in her grave.

She's probably been spinning like a top for years.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... When you consider Dimwit's mother came from Scotland, she must be rolling in her grave.

She's probably been spinning like a top for years.
Hook her up to a generator, get some energy?
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Nate Silver's calculations appear to be for Dimwit's last foot in the mouth episode. It should also be noted the Mueller investigation is Dimwit's Achilles heel. Yes, it will be tough, but when the Democrats can take Alabama, a state that voted 97% for Sessions (R) the last time he ran, I stay anything is possible.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Sunday night's episode of "Madam Secretary" (on CBS) was very pertinent, and really, really good. I will just tell you a tiny bit, less than what's in the trailer.

It seems that the president is not behaving like himself.

Watch the whole thing. You can probably find it online.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... When you consider Dimwit's mother came from Scotland, she must be rolling in her grave.

She's probably been spinning like a top for years.
At one point (possibly during troubles in his first marriage), she asked "What kind of son have I raised?" That might be in the Wikipedia entry on her. (I read several relevant articles lately, and don't remember.)
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... When you consider Dimwit's mother came from Scotland, she must be rolling in her grave.

She's probably been spinning like a top for years.
Hook her up to a generator, get some energy?
Hook him up and with all that hot air he could be a snowblower for New York State.

[ 15. January 2018, 12:35: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I [say] anything is possible.

I am with you, Gramps. I did not mean to deflate anyone's hopes with that post; I realise hope, and a fighting spirit, are you weapons of choice against the Orange Groper. May the tide continue to turn.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Galluping Granny--at the time the words on the Statue of Liberty were included, places like Italy, and Ireland and Scotland where considered sh-tholes. When you consider Dimwit's mother came from Scotland, she must be rolling in her grave.

Technically, Ireland and Scotland were considered shite-holes. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
IIRC, his mom worked in domestic service, once she got here. I wonder if her son thinks that's a worthy sort of immigrant.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Cheers for the analyses guys. I'm very pleased that we are in with a shot.

I'm in a Father Ted appreciation group on facebook, and the admins ask people not to post political stuff. In one ep. Father Ted is caught making a racist joke, and then spends the rest of the episode trying to prove he's not a racist. I'm afraid that pictures of Trump with the headline "I'm not a racist" have proved just too tempting for some members.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
I do wish some enterprising reporter would has 44.1 how we tell racists from non-racists, then, if he isn't one. He claims to be "least racist person ever interviewed."

I personally would love to be able to claim that about myself, but I know it isn't true. I grew up in a structurally-racist society surrounded by institutional, legally-approved racism, reared by a dad who was oh-so-gentlemanly and also oh-so-racist, and I know even all these decades later, I STILL haven't managed to root out all the sneaky, racist, never-questioned-but-utterly-false assumptions I bought into from early childhood on up to my beginning-to-dodder present.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
We are marching on Saturday. New York, Denver, DC. Unfortunately my knee issues will probably prevent me from participating. I wonder if I should paint signs and distribute them again?
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I wish I could make Saturday's march but I have family commitments..
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
My copy of Fire and Fury has arrived!

So far it's everything I hoped for, and not as tabloidy as I had feared.

Interestingly, Wolff reserves some criticism for the media and its obssessive fixation that everything Trump and his team says or does proves conspiracy rather than cock-up.
quote:
This had led increasingly to the two-different-realities theory of Trump politics. In the one reality, which encompassed most of Trump’s supporters, his nature was understood and appreciated. He was the anti-wonk. He was the counterexpert. His was the gut call. He was the everyman. He was jazz (some, in the telling, made it rap), everybody else an earnest folk music.
In the other reality, in which resided most of his antagonists, his virtues were grievous if not mental and criminal flaws. In this reality lived the media, which, with its conclusion of a misbegotten and bastard presidency, believed it could diminish him and wound him (and wind him up) and rob him of all credibility by relentlessly pointing out how literally wrong he was.

The book strengthens my convictions about how bad Trump is, but Wolff's comments about the media indicate he has some critical distance in establishing this. His evidence may not stand up in court but he appears, as I suspected, to be a credible source. There's more to the book* than the juicy bits that feed into that media version of reality.

==
*Which, I discovered in seeking the quote, you can now find online for free with ease
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe it was this bad with your Nixon president but social media means we're aware and weren't then?

How many times did [EXPLETIVE DELETED] appear in the Nixon tape transcripts?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The book [Fire and Fury] strengthens my convictions about how bad Trump is, but Wolff's comments about the media indicate he has some critical distance in establishing this. His evidence may not stand up in court but he appears, as I suspected, to be a credible source. There's more to the book* than the juicy bits that feed into that media version of reality.

==
*Which, I discovered in seeking the quote, you can now find online for free with ease

Very interestingly Wikileaks decided to publish the entire text of the book online. This seems a bit suspicious since Fire and Fury isn't some secret document that needs to be leaked to serve the public interest, which is Wikileaks' ostensible raison d'être. It's a document available for sale to anyone who has the money to pay for it, or for free to anyone with a library card and a willingness to wait for an available copy. The only thing this seems likely to accomplish is to depress sales, essentially causing financial harm to a Trump critic. Given Wikileaks' role in disseminating hacked DNC e-mails, this seems like further evidence of partisan preference in the organization.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I'm sure Holt is going to enter the lists on that point. The publisher's duty is to defend its property; they have a best-seller on their hands and it's worth fighting for it.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
As with comedy, the key to taking good depositions is timing.

January 5: Trump mocks Steve Bannon via tweet.

January 9: Trump supporters fire Bannon from his job at Breitbart.

Sometime "last week" (January 8-12) Steve Bannon gets subpœnaed to appear before Mueller's grand jury*.

quote:
Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

The move marked the first time Mr. Mueller is known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump’s inner circle. The special counsel’s office has used subpoenas before to seek information on Mr. Trump’s associates and their possible ties to Russia or other foreign governments.

The subpoena could be a negotiating tactic. Mr. Mueller is likely to allow Mr. Bannon to forgo the grand jury appearance if he agrees to instead be questioned by investigators in the less formal setting of the special counsel’s offices about ties between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia and about the president’s conduct in office, according to the person, who would not be named discussing the case. But it was not clear why Mr. Mueller treated Mr. Bannon differently than the dozen administration officials who were interviewed in the final months of last year and were never served with a subpoena.

The administration only has something to worry about from this quarter if Bannon is a surly, vengeful man with a head full of compromising secrets and nothing much left to lose.


--------------------
*The New York Times[I] has a paywall that restricts non-subscribers to five articles per calendar month. Only click through if you're a [I]NYT subscriber or are willing to use one of your five monthly Times passes on an article about Steve Bannon.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And Lyin' Don is so loyal to his minions, they surely will return that exact same faith to him in full measure, pressed down and running over.

This is something I am sure Crooked Don would approve of, the ole pussygrabber, but is not actually about him. An exceptionally cack-handed Utah legislator lets his Twitter finger run away with him and oh! the blowback. One has to shed a tear. But not before looking at all the comments!

[ 16. January 2018, 18:34: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
According to the Davis County GOP Chairwoman who commented on the above, the guy was surprised by the reactions he got. "I mean, seriously. He’s quite astounded [by] the repercussions of all of this.”

Frankly, the fact that he's surprised at people's objections is almost worse than the original comment.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The administration only has something to worry about from this quarter if Bannon is a surly, vengeful man with a head full of compromising secrets and nothing much left to lose.

I'm hoping he sings like a canary. What has he got to lose at this point?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I'm hoping he sings like a canary. What has he got to lose at this point?

The impression given is that he - of all people - has an attachment to 'Trumpism' in some form (he sees himself as keeper of the movements ideology). So he is unlikely to 'sing like a canary' though he may well say various injudicious things because he believes he can play '4 dimensional chess'.

So I suspect that any impact on Trump himself will be second/third order effects at best as a result of him pointing the figure at those he loathes (Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The book strengthens my convictions about how bad Trump is, but Wolff's comments about the media indicate he has some critical distance in establishing this. His evidence may not stand up in court but he appears, as I suspected, to be a credible source.

As I said up-thread, the picture the book paints comports with the visible bits of the administration - so in that sense it has a ring of truth to it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe it was this bad with your Nixon president but social media means we're aware and weren't then?

How many times did [EXPLETIVE DELETED] appear in the Nixon tape transcripts?
A whole heckuva lot, IIRC.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given Wikileaks' role in disseminating hacked DNC e-mails, this seems like further evidence of partisan preference in the organization.

I read an article on Monday (behind a paywall) which basically said the same thing:

quote:
[Assange’s] collaboration with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, in the 2016 US elections, in favour of Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton, should have alerted everybody that Wikileaks has become Assange’s private vehicle for conducting vendettas and campaigns. He used to be an anti-Western anarchist; now he’s just a rebel with a grudge who helps monstrous political leaders when it suits him.


[ 17. January 2018, 00:03: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
So trumpy had a medical. No confirmation of him being a "stable genius". They don't appear to have conducted an impulse control test, nor any tests of personality. I don't know if "pervert" and "shithole" can be diagnoses, and perhaps there's no need to confirm what we already know.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Well, T reportedly asked for a cognitive test, and reportedly passed (SF Gate).
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
A cognitive test doesn't test for mental illness. The one I had recently (my first annual physical since being on Medicare) asked me to spell a word backwards, to remember three words which she would ask me several minutes later, fold a piece of paper in half, etc.

She didn't test me to see if I was a stable genius.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
But if the test really happened, and he really passed all 30 questions, that supposedly means he doesn't have cognitive problems. Which seems extremely unlikely.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So trumpy had a medical. No confirmation of him being a "stable genius". They don't appear to have conducted an impulse control test, nor any tests of personality. I don't know if "pervert" and "shithole" can be diagnoses, and perhaps there's no need to confirm what we already know.

I think it is an indication of a doctor in Trump’s pocket.

“He does not exercise, has a long history of eating McDonald’s and drinking Diet Coke, and is just short of obese. Yet Donald Trump’s health is “excellent”, his mind is “sharp” and he only needs four or five hours’ sleep a night, the presidential physician said on Tuesday.”

A GLOWING report!

But, like rotten teeth, we can only ignore such body abuse for so long. Eventually it catches up with us and no fine words will chase it away.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
But if the test really happened, and he really passed all 30 questions, that supposedly means he doesn't have cognitive problems. Which seems extremely unlikely.

Maybe it is about degree. I'm not a doctor so I'm probably completely wrong - but I suspect there are some conditions where one could pass the test but have impaired higher level functions.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Here's another not-very-quoted-by-outraged-media bit of Fire and Fury, about a Trump meeting with fortune 100 CEOs early in the presidency. He doesn't sound very demential:
quote:
Trump (...) conducted it entirely himself. Each of the people at the table, taking a point of interest, spoke for five minutes, with Trump then asking follow-up questions. Though Trump appeared not to have particularly, or at all, prepared for any of the subjects being discussed, he asked engaged and interested questions, pursuing things he wanted to know more about, making the meeting quite an easy back-and-forth. One of the CEOs observed that this seemed like the way Trump preferred to get information—talking about what he was interested in and getting other people to talk about his interests.

The meeting went on for two hours. In the White House view, this was Trump at his best.

What comes across to me from this is that Trump can come across as confused and distracted when he simply isn't interested. He's sociopathically self-absorbed, making no concessions at all to social convention when he doesn't see it as worth doing, and is not versed in the world of politics, but he has an active mind and plenty of animal cunning. He just doesn't function like most people.

I see no reason to doubt his health report, which also helps explain his sticking power.

In both these respects he reminds me of con artists I have known.

I'm strengthened in my conviction that he could well be in office until 2024 and that fascinating as all this speculation and fantasising is, it's a distraction from the real issues at stake, like getting out the Democrat vote and producing credible candidate(s).

[ 17. January 2018, 08:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

...except we here have to deal with the damage he is doing now, from shrinking national parks, to insulting immigrants and their countries, to still wanting that damn wall (and it would be a real wall--4 samples have been built in Southern California), to prodding N. Korea towards nuclear war.

Democratic election strategizing is all very well, but it doesn't fix things NOW.

Question: Have you watched any TV coverage of T? Not people talking about him, but T himself? IMHO, that makes all the difference in recognizing his many problems. Written words aren't enough.

I've seen 2 or 3 interviews with the "Fire & Fury" author. I have mixed feelings about him and his methods.

Eutychus, there are lots of things you are missing about T. You're going by what you have; but, respectfully, it isn't enough to understand what's going on.

FWIW.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Democratic election strategizing is all very well, but it doesn't fix things NOW.

What practical proposals do you have for "fixing things NOW" that don't compromise the system of government any more than it's already compromised?

Impeachment? Not going to happen unless the house majorities change.

25th Amendment? You are opening the door to just about any future President being removed on the vaguest of terms.

Armed insurrection? Are you sure?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question: Have you watched any TV coverage of T? Not people talking about him, but T himself? IMHO, that makes all the difference in recognizing his many problems.

I have no doubt Trump has many problems, but I would be wary of drawing informed conclusions about them from what you see on TV.

Unless, of course, you are willing for people to draw conclusions about YOU (theoretically) from what you see portrayed of yourself in the media.

This whole problem has arisen in part due to people making judgements based on media perception.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Eutychus hits the nail on the head. Self-absorbed, sociopathic, animal cunning. Nasty piece of work.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Great joke by Tom Ballard about Trump and the news media, went something like: Come on news media. First you tell me that Trump is going to go to jail for the rest of his life, then you tell me he's going to marry my Mum.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question: Have you watched any TV coverage of T? Not people talking about him, but T himself? IMHO, that makes all the difference in recognizing his many problems.

I have no doubt Trump has many problems, but I would be wary of drawing informed conclusions about them from what you see on TV.

Unless, of course, you are willing for people to draw conclusions about YOU (theoretically) from what you see portrayed of yourself in the media.

This whole problem has arisen in part due to people making judgements based on media perception.

Those judgements come from hope, wishful thinking imo

My hope is that his impairments get to him before he can do much more damage. How much stronger must that hope be in the US.

Whether those impairments are caused by his personality disorder or other condition or a mixture of both, who knows? Not his doctor by the look of it.

One thing about encroaching dementia ‘tho - it can be very intermittent. Total lucidity followed by periods of confusion, or just small lapses at the beginning.

I won’t stop hoping that he’s gone soon. And I know that saying it doesn’t make it so. I’d have faith in God if that were true [Razz]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Bearing in mind the age of DT I'd have expected the medical team in charge of the POTUS to include a geriatrician, since the speciality of the current White House Physician is Emergency Medicine, with particular expertise in Submarine & Hyperbaric medicine. In other words he could spot it if DT had symptoms indicating he had the Bends but might overlook signs of cognitive degeneration.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm strengthened in my conviction that he could well be in office until 2024 and that fascinating as all this speculation and fantasising is, it's a distraction from the real issues at stake, like getting out the Democrat vote and producing credible candidate(s).

I agree to a large extent[*]. During the election it was a frequent complaint from the Democratic side that the media was focusing on the minutia of Trump's ever utterance and therefore allowing him to set the agenda and missing the wider picture. How ironic then that this is the Democratic focus now .. and even when it comes to ameliorating particular policies the focus is more on the immediate outrage caused by the policy itself rather than the strategy required to reverse the trend [Partly because they seem to be intent on continuing to pose a politics of inevitability against the possibility of any change from the left - on which note see the following lecture from Timothy Snyder: https://youtu.be/6nEmBmGK5kM ]

In other ways - see the extension of warrantless surveillance above - the party machine gives the impression that they are quite comfortable with a Trump administration, and their actions tend to belie their words.

[*] I think 'low cunning' is a good way to describe Trump's personality, though the particular self focus he has is likely to only get worse over time, and lead to mental deterioration even absent any immediate medical cause. He may also decide he's bored of course.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Mr T's behaviour is disquietingly similar to that of another self-proclaimed genius who was leader of a great nation.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
The cognitive test Trump supposedly got 100% doesn’t look all that taxing. It involves things like identifying a picture of a camel and drawing a picture of a clock. It’s not really meant to pick up dementia and the like.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And there is a new word for those who continue to contemplate Lyin' Don's health history in hope! I saw in in the Guardian: girthers.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
During the election it was a frequent complaint from the Democratic side that the media was focusing on the minutia of Trump's ever utterance and therefore allowing him to set the agenda and missing the wider picture.

Actually the biggest Democratic complaint about the media's coverage of the 2016 Presidential Election was the obsessive focus on e-mail management practices at the State Department from 2009 to 2013. Judging by coverage accrued, that was what the American media considered the most important issue facing voters in November 2016.

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The cognitive test Trump supposedly got 100% doesn’t look all that taxing. It involves things like identifying a picture of a camel and drawing a picture of a clock. It’s not really meant to pick up dementia and the like.

It's not taxing, but it is a recognized high-level diagnostic tool. It's possible Trump was having a 'good day' when he took it. It's also possible that he doesn't have dementia, he's just a moron.

quote:
Note that [House majority leader Kevin] McCarthy was not walking the president through a complex technical policy requiring expertise in a field like science or economics. He was trying to explain the elections. He had to use pictures. It has been publicly known since last year that Trump cannot read a memo longer than a page, and any written material must be in bullet-point form. Trump himself admitted (or bragged) a year and a half ago that he does not read. “I never have. I’m always busy doing a lot. Now I’m more busy, I guess, than ever before.” By this point it is simply taken as a matter of course that people wishing to communicate with the president must treat him as though he is suffering a severe mental impairment.

Trump is not actually suffering a severe mental impairment. White House doctor Ronny Jackson, who has served in the post since 2013, informed reporters on Wednesday that the president is in fine physical and mental health. The report comes as the national media has discussed whether Trump’s functional near-illiteracy, minuscule attention span, and narcissistic pathos are the symptoms of dementia or some other kind of cognitive incapacitation. We should take Jackson’s diagnosis at face value. Trump is just an idiot.


 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A friend summarized it more cogently: He's not sick. He's evil.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
According to the BBC website, you don't even have to draw a picture of a clock on the test, just be able to tell the time shown in the picture. This isn't a test to determine intelligence; it's a test to identify quickly whether any areas of intelligence have become considerably impaired. I'd expect an average 9 year old to be able to get 100%, possibly 80% if they weren't concentrating.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A friend summarized it more cogently: He's not sick. He's evil.

Just what I've been thinking. If he can't blame his behavior on dementia, he has no excuse for the horrid things he says and does.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I did the test c/o the BBC website, and scored 100% (to my relief). In all honesty, the mathematical question made me think, but then I've never been very good with numbers anyway.

Sadly, I think Pigwidgeon is right.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
So the long-awaited Fake News Awards are supposed to be announced tonight. The lack of build-up and fanfare (together with the press secretary referring to it as a "potential event" in yesterday's press conference) suggest to me that they are likely not going to happen.

(It's actually been a field-day for the late night shows, who have been submitting "for your consideration" reels to the press. Samantha Bee has been pressing for "shrillest fake news," and Trevor Noah has bragged that he's a shoe-in, given that he is literally "un-American".)
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It was fairly meaningless, they were trying to mirror the mini mental state examination. But - for example - the take 7 question is a test of working memory, so writing it down defeats the entire point of the question.

If they gave the president the mini mental state exam it would tell them very little. You have to be showing gross signs of cognitive dysfunction for that to show anything up - its a very crude measure. If he's slightly more disinhibited, or has mild attentional problems it wont show it. But they would be much more marked when he was overloaded with demand in real life.

[ 17. January 2018, 19:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So the long-awaited Fake News Awards are supposed to be announced tonight. The lack of build-up and fanfare (together with the press secretary referring to it as a "potential event" in yesterday's press conference) suggest to me that they are likely not going to happen.

(It's actually been a field-day for the late night shows, who have been submitting "for your consideration" reels to the press. Samantha Bee has been pressing for "shrillest fake news," and Trevor Noah has bragged that he's a shoe-in, given that he is literally "un-American".)

They have via Twitter. No professional clowns made the list, but it's like a "Top 10" style list of demonstrably false, often retracted stories published about Trump over the last year or so.

I'd link but the page has now crashed.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

Note: I realized, last night, that we've had this same discussion at least a couple of times before. Didn't solve anything then, and won't now. So I'm just going to answer your two posts, then bow out of discussing this with you.
[Angel]

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Democratic election strategizing is all very well, but it doesn't fix things NOW.

What practical proposals do you have for "fixing things NOW" that don't compromise the system of government any more than it's already compromised?

Impeachment? Not going to happen unless the house majorities change.

25th Amendment? You are opening the door to just about any future President being removed on the vaguest of terms.

Armed insurrection? Are you sure?

I've never advocated violence. In fact, I've specifically stated "must be non-violent and legal" when non-USA folks ask why can't we get T out of office right now.

The 25th is there to be used, if and when there's an appropriate circumstance, as spelled out in the amendment. It's like having emergency rescue gear: you don't play with it, but it's there to use in an emergency.

Impeachment might be appropriate if it can get enough votes. Next election for Congress may help. And even some Congressional Republicans are getting sick of T.

Personally, I hope he'll decide that he's bored and ill-treated, and quit so he can be happier.

Then there's the Russian influence investigation. And more and more people in DC and elsewhere are standing up to T.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Golden Key:
[qb]Question: Have you watched any TV coverage of T? Not people talking about him, but T himself? IMHO, that makes all the difference in recognizing his many problems.

I have no doubt Trump has many problems, but I would be wary of drawing informed conclusions about them from what you see on TV.

Unless, of course, you are willing for people to draw conclusions about YOU (theore
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Question: Have you watched any TV coverage of T? Not people talking about him, but T himself? IMHO, that makes all the difference in recognizing his many problems.

I have no doubt Trump has many problems, but I would be wary of drawing informed conclusions about them from what you see on TV.

Unless, of course, you are willing for people to draw conclusions about YOU (theoretically) from what you see portrayed of yourself in the media.

This whole problem has arisen in part due to people making judgements based on media perception.

One way to learn about a person is to pay attention to them: watch them; listen to what they say and how; read their facial expressions and other non-verbal cues; see how they interact with other people; notice whether they appear sick or healthy; notice how they move, and if anything's changed about that. Etc.

If I voluntarily took the job of being US president, I would *expect* people to judge me on what they see. I wouldn't like it, but it goes with the job. And they can't all come see me in person, and get to know me over cocoa and cookies.

So we have to rely, at least partly, on what we see in TV coverage--bearing in mind that both the media and the White House have their own agendas.

It ain't always easy, but it's what we've got.

Watching T on TV, I can see when his mind obviously skips a gear, when he's furious, when he's totally out of control, when he's saying untruths but evidently believes them at the time he says them. I can see that he's looking less well lately, by his face and movements. Etc.

Best thing for everyone, including him, is to get him out of office. Otherwise, at the rate he's tearing it apart, we won't have much of a country anymore.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
**Dear H/As**:

Severe connection problems messed up my truncated post, which is 2 above this one.

Please remove it, when you get a chance.

Thanks! [Smile]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
How does Trump change a lightbulb?
He doesn't, but he will say he did
And the Republicans will agree with him while they are sitting in the dark.

Little news item: A Wisconsin state senate seat flipped from the Republican side to the Democratic side. Why is this important? It was a rural district that Trump had won by 17 points. It goes to show his support in rural districts is slipping. More about the win here.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Meanwhile, 90% of the career diplomatic corps have left the State Department and nine out of twelve members of the National Parks advisory council resigned. USA Today Story
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
They have via Twitter. No professional clowns made the list, but it's like a "Top 10" style list of demonstrably false, often retracted stories published about Trump over the last year or so.

I'd link but the page has now crashed.

The roll-out was probably too much for what it was, which probably caused the crash.

But if you look at that page as an appeal to the base, it was undeniably well done. Demonstrably false and retracted stories, linking Russia, and then a list of accomplishments. And a fundraising pitch at the end.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It was fairly meaningless, they were trying to mirror the mini mental state examination.

And Trump definitely has a mini mental state.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This whole problem has arisen in part due to people making judgements based on media perception.

This whole problem has arisen because our president is a screaming fascist pig. But seriously, for public figures like the president, what else CAN you base judgments upon other than media perception? A microscopic portion of the US populace have access to the man. The rest of us only have what's in the media.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
How does Trump change a lightbulb?
He doesn't, but he will say he did
And the Republicans will agree with him while they are sitting in the dark.

Weirdly it doesn't end there. He will say he did, all the Republicans will agree he did, and then two days later he will say he didn't really. Why anyone would stump for this man eludes me. He will throw you under the bus just for the sheer joy of watching the contortions on your face as the wheels crush out your life.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This whole problem has arisen because our president is a screaming fascist pig. But seriously, for public figures like the president, what else CAN you base judgments upon other than media perception?

Obviously not my 401k.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
what else CAN you base judgments upon other than media perception? A microscopic portion of the US populace have access to the man. The rest of us only have what's in the media.

I realise it's a bit late, but this is much of why I got Wolff's book. It is less one-sided than one might imagine, for instance by summarising, sometimes acerbically but plausibly, the thinking of those in the Trump camp as well as that of his opponents.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Why anyone would stump for this man eludes me. He will throw you under the bus just for the sheer joy of watching the contortions on your face as the wheels crush out your life.

I've long thought Trump is like Saruman:
quote:
Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spake to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away. and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them.
Wolff repeatedly makes the point about Trump's charisma and compelling flattery of those he wishes to ingratiate.

I think just about everybody here is in the position of those "seeing through the juggler's trick" - but many seem oblivious to the fact that given the right circumstances, they could easily fall under the spell themselves, and that others have done.

Seriously, am I the only person here ever to have been conned?

Not seeing this is possible leads us to ridicule and belittle Trump supporters and by extension all Republicans, and the division that sows is I think one of the most damaging and probably one of the hardest aspects to undo of his presidency.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
No, you are not.

I was once charmed by a weasly narcissistic bully. So much so I applied for a job where she was boss.

It was only as I watched her go for a target and became a target myself, due to defending him, that I realised just how cleverly she charmed people and hid the bullying from everyone except the targets of her bullying.

Sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissistic people can act normal and act incredibly charming.

Is this the case with Trump? Well, I see no charm whatsoever. Maybe people are dazzled by his riches?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't think Trump is a conman. A con would be if it turned out that Obama, riding on a wave of support and admiration - actually believed things that were the opposite of his platform.

I don't see that. There is no con here: Trump is being quite opaque in saying and doing things that appeal to his base.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Tony Schwartz, who wrote ‘The Art of the Deal’ for Trump said “Trump is angrier and more self-absorbed than when I first knew him. We must not let his culture of fear stop us speaking out “

quote:
About the only thing Trump truly has in common with his base is that he feels every bit as aggrieved as they do, despite his endless privilege. No amount of money, fame or power has been enough to win him the respect he so insatiably craves. His anger over this perceived injustice is visceral and authentic. Trump’s unwinding of government programmes such as Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act will fuel yet more fear among the millions of people will lose their health care in the year ahead. The tax plan Trump pushed through most benefits him, his family and his fellow billionaires and provides the least relief to those who need it most. In both cases, the victims of these policies will include millions of his supporters who may find someone else to blame, but whose suffering will inexorably increase.
Link
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
He's not running a con now, but his modus operandi is that of a con artist.

He reminds me of con artists I've known and one I investigated in depth. He also reminds me a lot of Rick in A perfect spy, the protagonist's father who is based on Le Carré's own father.

Con artists are complex personalities. When you're outside the ambit of the con artist you can often see through them plain as day, but when you are in their thrall you stay mesmerised even as a little voice tells you you are being conned, because they appeal to something in you. And even after they've ripped you off for lots of money, or when you know they've defrauded many others, you still have grudging admiration for them and miss their aura.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


I don't see that. There is no con here: Trump is being quite opaque in saying and doing things that appeal to his base.

Sorry, I didn't mean opaque but the opposite - transparent!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
During the election it was a frequent complaint from the Democratic side that the media was focusing on the minutia of Trump's ever utterance and therefore allowing him to set the agenda and missing the wider picture.

Actually the biggest Democratic complaint about the media's coverage of the 2016 Presidential Election was the obsessive focus on e-mail management practices at the State Department from 2009 to 2013.
Certainly subsequent to the leaks yes. However in the period from the middle of 2016 to late 2017 there were frequent complaints about the media coverage of Trump - its fairly easy to dig up articles on the topic from that period.

[ 18. January 2018, 10:06: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


I don't see that. There is no con here: Trump is being quite opaque in saying and doing things that appeal to his base.

Sorry, I didn't mean opaque but the opposite - transparent!
But he's not. Every week there's at least one article in the news about some group of people he's betrayed, and shocked little racists going, "But we never thought he would do that to US!"
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Then there's the Russian influence investigation.

The Russian thing is a symptom rather than an actual cause. I also doubt if any investigations will dig up a sufficiently clear conspiracy that Trump will be forced to resign by virtue of that alone.

The largest benefit is likely to be that of creating a large enough cloud around the Trump name that Ivanka Trump doesn't run for office in a few years time.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The Russian thing is a symptom rather than an actual cause. I also doubt if any investigations will dig up a sufficiently clear conspiracy that Trump will be forced to resign by virtue of that alone.

Wolff again:
quote:
This was the peculiar and haunting consensus—not that Trump was guilty of all that he was accused of but that he was guilty of so much else. It was all too possible that the hardly plausible would lead to the totally credible.
As I said ages ago, it's like Al Capone - brought down for humble tax fraud.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
This was the peculiar and haunting consensus—not that Trump was guilty of all that he was accused of but that he was guilty of so much else. It was all too possible that the hardly plausible would lead to the totally credible.
As I said ages ago, it's like Al Capone - brought down for humble tax fraud.
Yes, I'm absolutely sure that hunting through Trumps financial affairs would prove to be more fruitful if one wanted to find evidence with which to convict him - in reality I doubt if this would happen, primarily because of the precedent it would then set.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


I don't see that. There is no con here: Trump is being quite opaque in saying and doing things that appeal to his base.

Sorry, I didn't mean opaque but the opposite - transparent!
But he's not. Every week there's at least one article in the news about some group of people he's betrayed, and shocked little racists going, "But we never thought he would do that to US!"
I haven’t heard a whole lot of that myself. My afternoon drive-time hate listen (because afternoon traffic doesn’t suck enough) is a local conservative talk show called (without a hint of irony) “Rush to Reason.” Two ordinary, average guys (yep, that’s their theme song) discuss the issues of the day using “logic and reason.”

These guys are classic Trump voters. And to hear it from them, Trump is the lone sane voice who gets it. They see non-citizens getting thrown out, regulations slashed, tax cuts that will surely trickle down, a conservative Supreme Court justice, and a bunch of liberal crybabies losing their shit over every move, and they love it.

2020’s going to be close. If it’s not all hands on deck throughout, he’ll easily get four more years. The Trump base doesn’t care about your “voting against your own self interest” take. They know what they like, and he’s it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
These guys are classic Trump voters. And to hear it from them, Trump is the lone sane voice who gets it. They see non-citizens getting thrown out, regulations slashed, tax cuts that will surely trickle down, a conservative Supreme Court justice, and a bunch of liberal crybabies losing their shit over every move, and they love it.

I would agree with this assessment - for the most part the worst impacts of the Trump policies haven't hit his base so far, and insofar as they have, his base doesn't care as long as he continues to promise to hurt liberals even more.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
These guys are classic Trump voters. And to hear it from them, Trump is the lone sane voice who gets it. They see non-citizens getting thrown out, regulations slashed, tax cuts that will surely trickle down, a conservative Supreme Court justice, and a bunch of liberal crybabies losing their shit over every move, and they love it.

I would agree with this assessment - for the most part the worst impacts of the Trump policies haven't hit his base so far, and insofar as they have, his base doesn't care as long as he continues to promise to hurt liberals even more.
A conventional politician tries to win votes by enacting policies (or promising to enact policies) that will make the lives of his constituents (or at least a majority of his constituents) better. Trump's main appeal comes not from this but from his promise to smite the "enemies" of his supporters. So far he seems to be delivering on that.

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
2020’s going to be close. If it’s not all hands on deck throughout, he’ll easily get four more years. The Trump base doesn’t care about your “voting against your own self interest” take. They know what they like, and he’s it.

I'm not sure Trump is as formidable electorally as some here maintain. He'll have the advantages of incumbency in 2020, but he'll be struggling in other areas. A lot of Trump's appeal is racial resentment. The conventional wisdom among Republican presidential candidates up to this point was that overt appeals to racism were a net negative. In some ways Trump has proved this to be true. Trump actually got a smaller share of the white electorate (57%) than Mitt Romney did in 2012 (59%). Add in the fact that the white electorate was a smaller proportion of the vote in 2016 than it was in 2012 (71% vs. 72%) and we can see that, overall, Trump's strategy is a net vote loser. This translated into a somewhat flukey win through the geography involved in trading the votes of college-educated white voters for less educated white voters (and having the FBI Director publicly call his opponent a crook less than two weeks before election day). I'm not sure this is a winning strategy going forward unless the non-white vote can be dramatically suppressed.

Add in to this the fact that Donald Trump is incredibly unpopular. No other American president has had approval ratings consistently below 40% during their first year in office, and no first term American president has ever had an approval rating that low when the unemployment rate was below 5%. This is literally unprecedented. (Unpresidented?)

This doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's re-election prospects are doomed. Any major party presidential nominee has a non-trivial chance of victory. I'm just saying that he faces more obstacles than are commonly acknowledged.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Add in to this the fact that Donald Trump is incredibly unpopular. No other American president has had approval ratings consistently below 40% during their first year in office, and no first term American president has ever had an approval rating that low when the unemployment rate was below 5%. This is literally unprecedented. (Unpresidented?)

The thing is that there is a fairly large percentage of that 39% who are fanatically pro-Trump as so he can rely on turnout from them. Plus various groups like the evangelicals and the rich will show up and contribute heavily due particular policies (supreme court appointees and tax cuts)

quote:

This doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's re-election prospects are doomed. Any major party presidential nominee has a non-trivial chance of victory. I'm just saying that he faces more obstacles than are commonly acknowledged.

and how they get translated into reality really depends on whom the Democrats run against him.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He's also managed to tank American popularity worldwide. These are the kinds of polls I am certain none of the staffers dare to show him.

There's some evidence that the Trump opposition is fired up and ready to fight. It is shatteringly clear by now that turning out the vote is crucial. We all know now (right?) that we have to vote, every election without exception, until they shovel us under.

Another major issue is the clownish incompetence of the Trump administration. I could supply you many many more links on this point. As it becomes more and more evident that they're not doing their proper jobs, people are less inclined to keep them in office.

Yes, the diehards will hang on to the bitter end. But they're not the majority, nowhere near. And the current regime seems to be doing a lot of things to alienate them.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
These are undoubtedly the same people that trumpy was thinking about when he said shithole and when he said both sides re white supremacy people. Which someone said on the radio here is merely a throwback to the American "founding fathers".
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I forget who it was who asked for the arguments of pro-Trumpers. There's going to be interviews with them on NPR tomorrow -- no link yet, because the piece hasn't aired, but it'll be up at www.npr.org.

Also, in a fit of crazed journalistic impartiality, the NY Times handed over today's editorial page to crowd-sourced pro-Trumpers. A number of media pundits have weighed in pointing out what a lousy idea this is, but if you have a Times click to invest go have a look.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

Another major issue is the clownish incompetence of the Trump administration. I could supply you many many more links on this point. As it becomes more and more evident that they're not doing their proper jobs, people are less inclined to keep them in office.

This is only an issue in the minds of his supporters if they are exposed to it, and generally Fox and co are either avoiding the issue or claiming Democratic intransigence as the problem. Just because the GOP has control of both houses doesn't mean they cant spin that they were the victims
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Just because the GOP has control of both houses doesn't mean they cant spin that they were the victims

They can spin anything to their advantage because their base is incapable of hearing anything negative about them.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Here is an article about Australians' attitudes to Trump, faith that the US will act responsibly in the world, and the need for the ANZUS alliance. It's from June last year. The author is one of the most respected Journos in the country, winding down to a well-earned retirement. Actually, I think her veins run with ink and she will never retire.

The Conversation: Grattan Article
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There's a plethora of first-year pieces about Lyin' Don but this one is especially sound.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Just because the GOP has control of both houses doesn't mean they cant spin that they were the victims

They can spin anything to their advantage because their base is incapable of hearing anything negative about them.
In which case you can't necessarily take solace from his low approval ratings.

There's a phenomena of late of the very angry winner (see also Brexit), and adopting this position makes it easier to run with all the advantages of being an insurgent even when one has been in power. It is highly likely that come the day, all Republican voters will turn out to vote Trump, because the voting bloc is made up of constituencies that is willing to trade everything for a single issue that they feel strongly about.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a plethora of first-year pieces about Lyin' Don but this one is especially sound.

Will Bunch's column is also worth a read.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Indeed it is, but profoundly disturbing. George Orwell was so right....

One can only hope (and God forgive me for saying it) that the Lying Leader of Shitholes (or Shithouses) does indeed become incapacitated by a stroke or heart attack.

Otherwise, America, you're well-and-truly f**ked (but the sensible ones among you knew that already, alas).

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Why am I hearing commentary that Bad Man could be re-elected? Is it scare-mongering? media wanting airtime? trying to motivate the opposition? possibly could happen?

I realize anything is possible but somethings are more likely than others.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's 300-odd days to the 2018 election. Everyone knew it would be a long slog; we're not going to give up.

I blew my knee out this year and can no longer walk for nine hours, and also I have a class. However, I'm thinking of driving down to the Mall in DC on Saturday and giving a carload of protest signs away. All the old favorites, "Putin Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" and "My Pussy My Rules."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It's 300-odd days to the 2018 election. Everyone knew it would be a long slog; we're not going to give up.

291, not that I'm counting.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why am I hearing commentary that Bad Man could be re-elected? Is it scare-mongering? media wanting airtime? trying to motivate the opposition? possibly could happen?

I realize anything is possible but somethings are more likely than others.

Step outside you bubble and tell me why he is not going to get re-elected.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Step outside you bubble and tell me why he is not going to get re-elected.

I've already noted some of the obstacles facing a Trump re-election*. Another is that when you combine the botched Puerto Rico recovery with his recent comments about Haiti (and, by implication, Haitians) it's almost like he's deliberately trying to lose Florida.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Step outside you bubble and tell me why he is not going to get re-elected.

I've already noted some of the obstacles facing a Trump re-election*. Another is that when you combine the botched Puerto Rico recovery with his recent comments about Haiti (and, by implication, Haitians) it's almost like he's deliberately trying to lose Florida.
So long as the Democrats select a nice, boring low-profile candidate, Trump may not get re-elected.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I blew my knee out this year and can no longer walk for nine hours, and also I have a class. However, I'm thinking of driving down to the Mall in DC on Saturday and giving a carload of protest signs away. All the old favorites, "Putin Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" and "My Pussy My Rules."

I must be old school… I am pining after those SHOW US YOUR TAXES ones.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why am I hearing commentary that Bad Man could be re-elected? Is it scare-mongering? media wanting airtime? trying to motivate the opposition? possibly could happen?

I realize anything is possible but somethings are more likely than others.

Up until election night 2016, everyone knew that Clinton winning was more likely than Trump winning. I was laughing at the few shipmates who were warning that it wasn't going to be an early night. Then it didn't happen.

I frankly do not trust the predictive power of popularity poll numbers right now. Historically low or not, I can't shake my suspicion that Trump is going to pull in somewhere between 45-47% of the popular vote. I hope he doesn't, but unless there is a complete economic meltdown before 2020, I think it can happen. Depending on where that % comes from, it might be enough to grab another electoral college victory.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I frankly do not trust the predictive power of popularity poll numbers right now. Historically low or not, I can't shake my suspicion that Trump is going to pull in somewhere between 45-47% of the popular vote. I hope he doesn't, but unless there is a complete economic meltdown before 2020, I think it can happen. Depending on where that % comes from, it might be enough to grab another electoral college victory.

Absent a significant third party run, even a major party candidate who loses in a blowout will get 45% of the popular vote. Michael Dukakis and John McCain both did.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...I'm thinking of driving down to the Mall in DC on Saturday and giving a carload of protest signs away. All the old favorites, "Putin Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" and "My Pussy My Rules."

I liked the "Truth Decay" comment in Hedgehog's link. Might make a decent sign!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I am perfectly happy to see Crooked Don get 45% of the vote. As long as the other candidate gets 55%.

I'm sure you have all seen (because how could you avoid it?) the news that Lyin' Don was dallying with a porn star shortly after marrying his current wife. It is all sleazy and typical, not worthy of your attention, except only one detail: the spanking of the future president with a copy of Forbes magazine.

Immediately the finer minds on FB have veered off onto the much more interesting question of how Forbes should respond to this novel use of their product. My suggestion was, "We do not approve the use of our publication for this purpose. Any deleterious consequences are totally on you." A friend immediately added, "We do not recommend using our electronic edition in this manner." Also new slogans for the magazine ("Forbes: Everything You Like About Business... and More"), cover design ('their next cover full black with the faintest hint of a butt print'), and entertainment tips ("Maybe Trump's one-year anniversary inauguration party at Mar-A-Lago can have one of those Bar Mitzvah photo booths where you get superimposed on a magazine cover like Forbes").

We get our amusements as we can in these dark days.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
So we are in agreement there- Trump's very likely going to get at least 45% of the popular vote, even if his numbers are currently historically low.

Here's the thing- 45.7% of the popular vote got McCain blown out in the EC. 46.1% of the popular vote gave Trump a comfortable EC edge. It's a screwy system, and an EC victory is entirely possible with Trump's likely range of votes.

All I'm saying is that I won't rest easy on the 2020 election until Trump's replacement is (hopefully) sworn in three years from now. I'm certainly going to take election day 2020 off to drive people to the polls, or do whatever else needs to be done to secure the D nominee Colorado's EC votes. I hope the rest of the party is ready to do the same.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, turnout is going to be key. If everyone does go to the polls, we'll be fine.

Oh, and this budget thing? It's really getting serious now -- Lyin' Don is going to have to not go to MarALago this weekend! I hope this means he'll be able to view all of the marchers on Saturday.

[ 19. January 2018, 17:49: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'm sure you have all seen (because how could you avoid it?) the news that Lyin' Don was dallying with a porn star shortly after marrying his current wife. It is all sleazy and typical, not worthy of your attention, except only one detail: the spanking of the future president with a copy of Forbes magazine.

A copy of Forbes magazine with a picture of Trump and two of his kids on the cover. It's that little extra bit of squickiness that separates Trump sleaze from the more run-of-the-mill sleaze.

A more interesting question that remains unanswered about a presidential candidate paying hush money to a former mistress in the middle of a campaign is "where did the money come from?" Trump is notoriously tight-fisted with his own funds. You might recall that John Edwards got into trouble for allegedly dipping into campaign funds to cover mistress-related expenses. Did Trump do the same?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, and this budget thing? It's really getting serious now -- Lyin' Don is going to have to not go to MarALago this weekend! I hope this means he'll be able to view all of the marchers on Saturday.

Maybe. According to "a government official" he's cancelled his trip, but "a White House spokeswoman" claims he's still going.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is sadly disappointing for him because they have laid out a vast first-year celebration for him and charged people $100,000 a ticket to get in.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is sadly disappointing for him because they have laid out a vast first-year celebration for him and charged people $100,000 a ticket to get in.

I hope people didn't pre-pay. I imagine refunds will be slow or non-existent.

Then again, anyone stupid enough to pay $100,000 per couple for this nonsense deserves whatever happens to their precious money.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Actuall, honest to goodness quote from our President today, addressing the National Right to Life march:
quote:
Right now in a number of states the law allows a baby to be born from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month. It's wrong, it has to change.
[Eek!]

(Posted, incidentally, not for Dead Horse fodder, bur simply for the amazing misstatement.)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Dammit. Somebody give him that cognition test again.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
As far as the shutdown goes, a bigger question than "where's Trump?" is "where's Pence?". He's supposed to be headed to the Middle East tonight. One of the few duties of the vice president* is to break tied votes in the Senate. Does he cancel on his visit to American allies, or does he shirk his Constitutional duty?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
If the Great Leader is putting off his usual retreat to the fastnesses of Maralago, then the US of A is clearly in deep brown cacky.

From this side of the pond, it's not easy to see how disastrous a shut-down would be for the Republicans, but, hopefully, if it does occur, it will indeed hit them where it hurts.

Trouble is, I suppose, that lots of harmless folk get caught up in it as well...

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
From this side of the pond, it's not easy to see how disastrous a shut-down would be for the Republicans, but, hopefully, if it does occur, it will indeed hit them where it hurts.

The pending government shutdown seems to be the product of a lot of careless errors by Republicans. One of them was the rejection of the bipartisan Graham-Durbin bill. This was the bill that would have resolved the DACA situation (and introduced other immigration reforms) which Trump famously rejected in scatological terms. This rejection convinced most legislators that the only way to protect the DREAMers is to attach the bill to a piece of must-pass legislation, which is how those two issues got linked. So that was an own-goal.

The other issue is needing 60 votes to pass a cloture motion in the Senate. Since there are only 50 Republican Senators present (John McCain is currently in Arizona recovering from cancer treatments) that means 10 Democrats would need to cross the aisle for anything to pass. Possibly more, since Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, and a few others Republican Senators have indicated that they're unwilling to vote for the bill the House passed earlier.

Now you'd think that a system would be designed to get around cloture rules (the 60 vote supermajority requirement in the Senate) for important stuff like keeping the government running, and you'd be right! The Senate can pass a reconciliation bill with a bare majority and no filibustering allowed, but they can only do one reconciliation bill per year, unless there's a reconciliation bill from a previous year that wasn't voted on. Conveniently the 2017 and 2018 reconciliation bills were available for the Senate's use. Unfortunately they used the 2017 reconciliation bill in their failed attempt to repeal Obamacare and they used the 2018 reconciliation bill to pass their tax reform. Apparently the priorities of Senate Republicans can be ordered thus:

  1. Take affordable health care away from millions of Americans
  2. Shovel more money into the pockets of the already-wealthy
  3. Keep the government working

So the shutdown, if it happens, is the consequence of a lot of hubris and some very easily foreseeable consequences of legislative ineptitude.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks for the explanation. Own goals, indeed.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This brinksmanship is not yet over. I have a class in a federal building tomorrow in DC, and I hope they don't close the government, otherwise I may not be able to get in.
For your further (free) reading pleasure, the reason Trump wasted his $130K paying off the porn star is because nobody cares, now, if he sleeps with porn stars or not. The Falwells, for instance, instantly discovered it was not a sin.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I'm surprised he paid her so little.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
She had to start talking to a periodical (it's the one that has actually published now) before he would actually cough up.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This brinksmanship is not yet over. I have a class in a federal building tomorrow in DC, and I hope they don't close the government, otherwise I may not be able to get in.

What kind of class?

Who is paying for this class, and why are you required to attend?

Why is this class in a Federal building?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This brinksmanship is not yet over. I have a class in a federal building tomorrow in DC, and I hope they don't close the government, otherwise I may not be able to get in.

What kind of class?

Who is paying for this class, and why are you required to attend?

Why is this class in a Federal building?

Should I ask where?
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Is the US unique in needing regular votes to continue public spending? Or is this a feature of many democracies, perhaps my own included, and I'd never paid any attention / realised?

It does seem unfair that payments to those employed by the government can be held and the employees told to go home... I imagine some at least are living pay cheque to pay cheque.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have a class in a federal building tomorrow in DC, and I hope they don't close the government, otherwise I may not be able to get in.

Hope you find out before you set out. And I do hope your class goes ahead.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Is the US unique in needing regular votes to continue public spending? Or is this a feature of many democracies, perhaps my own included, and I'd never paid any attention / realised?

It does seem unfair that payments to those employed by the government can be held and the employees told to go home... I imagine some at least are living pay cheque to pay cheque.

Not an expert, but AIUI Congress has to approve the federal budget each year. It's a festive time, when they can show their constituents how careful they are with the constituents' tax dollars. Lots of finger-pointing, power-tripping, and general nastiness. Never mind what might *actually* be in the best interest of their constituents.

Newt Gingrich was one of the worst. {Makes warding-off sign.} He's Republican, and was Speaker of the House during Bill Clinton's presidency. (Not sure about before or after.) He led this movement called "Contract With America"--which, of course, was renamed "Contract *On* America". He set out to shut down the gov't. IIRC, BC decided to call his bluff, and the gov't was shut down. Lots of federal employees were hurt by the situation. Eventually, the gov't was up and running, and I think it was pretty clealy the Republicans' fault.

I read that, in case of shutdown, Social Security checks (mostly for seniors and folks with disabilities) should go out ok. But lots of SSA folks will be off work.

Can't these yahoos in Congress grow up?? Grrrr.
[Mad]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
From a Guardian opinion piece -

quote:
During previous shutdowns, calm heads ultimately prevailed: people who cared about good government, or at least worried about the polls that pointed to widespread public disgust. But this is now Donald Trump’s Washington and there are no calm heads to be found.

As a matter of principle, Republicans cannot come together to agree a deal on immigration. As a matter of sanity, Donald Trump cannot stop his racist belching or surrender the fantasy about his Mexican wall. This shutdown shit-show could run and run.

Interesting times.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Is the US unique in needing regular votes to continue public spending? Or is this a feature of many democracies, perhaps my own included, and I'd never paid any attention / realised?


If a UK government budget bill was defeated in the Commons, this would trigger a general election (the last time this happened was when Gladstone was PM).
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
If a UK government budget bill was defeated in the Commons, this would trigger a general election (the last time this happened was when Gladstone was PM).

Actually not necessarily an election but the government would have to resign.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
IIRC, raising taxes without Parliamentary approval was one of the issues that caused Charles I to get his head cut off ...

[ 20. January 2018, 10:09: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Boogie quoted:
quote:
As a matter of principle, Republicans cannot come together to agree a deal on immigration. As a matter of sanity, Donald Trump cannot stop his racist belching or surrender the fantasy about his Mexican wall. This shutdown shit-show could run and run.
Which puts it rather well, IMHO.

[Votive] America, that once-great nation, but now a laughing-stock.... [Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Is the US unique in needing regular votes to continue public spending? Or is this a feature of many democracies, perhaps my own included, and I'd never paid any attention / realised?

Not unique. In most countries, democratic or otherwise, someone has to keep an eye on the public till and authorize expenditures. In the U.S. that's the Congress. The U.S. is somewhat hampered by the kind of divided government you don't see in Westminster-style parliamentary systems though.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From a Guardian opinion piece -

quote:
As a matter of principle, Republicans cannot come together to agree a deal on immigration. As a matter of sanity, Donald Trump cannot stop his racist belching or surrender the fantasy about his Mexican wall. This shutdown shit-show could run and run.
Interesting times.
Or, to quote Scott Lemieux:

quote:
[T]o my eye it still boils down to “no Republican Speaker of the House could bring a bill that could get 60 Senate votes to a vote and keep their job.”


[ 20. January 2018, 12:42: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Is the US unique in needing regular votes to continue public spending? Or is this a feature of many democracies, perhaps my own included, and I'd never paid any attention / realised?

Not unique. In most countries, democratic or otherwise, someone has to keep an eye on the public till and authorize expenditures. In the U.S. that's the Congress. The U.S. is somewhat hampered by the kind of divided government you don't see in Westminster-style parliamentary systems though.


Of course elected government must control spending but the question is whether decisions need re-approval periodically or government services continue until policy is changed.

The US way of doing things just seems daft to me. Think of ship (in days gone by, anyway - I'm watching 'The Onedin Line') where the man at the wheel is given a course to steer and continues on that heading until the a course change is ordered.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Is the US unique in needing regular votes to continue public spending? Or is this a feature of many democracies, perhaps my own included, and I'd never paid any attention / realised?

It does seem unfair that payments to those employed by the government can be held and the employees told to go home... I imagine some at least are living pay cheque to pay cheque.

You probably didn't notice it, but you're not alone, and I've had to inform theoretically well-informed folk (e.g., journalists, university academics, even political staff).

In most Westminster-origin parliaments, there are annual budget votes to authorize public spending. If a government can't get the vote through, it falls and usually there needs to be an election (or another party can sometimes manage to form a majority without an election).

In Canada, because parliaments were often not sitting for extensive periods, there is a mechanism called a governor-general's warrant which can obtain bridge funding, but it is not intended to substitute for regular appropriations.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I think this article points out one of the reasons why members of Congress don't seem to care.

I doubt there's a one of them that knows what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck. Definitely the clown in the White House doesn't.

It's so rich that orange Don blames the Dems for the shutdown, but then he doesn't take the blame for anything, does he?

Please excuse me. I have to go find some kittens and puppies.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Do be careful with those kittens and puppies - don't cuddle them too hard.

BBC News is giving its main coverage to events in Kabul, but there are any number of other articles about America.

Virtually every one features a photograph of The Great Fat Orange Face, in glowering mode. He must be missing his golf....

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And the lovely party, at which he hoped to bask in the adulation we persist in denying him up here in the real world.
It was a lovely day in the US for marching, but I'm tell there were marches worldwide. I didn't march but instead went to my painting class, where we showed each other pictures of the pussyhats we had knitted and the protest signs we had painted. Many of the students are federal employees and they aren't very happy about an unknown period without pay. In this area around the nation's capital there'll be real financial hardship by the end of the month.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In this area around the nation's capital there'll be real financial hardship by the end of the month.

If there is any place that could withstand the hardship, I'm sure the wealthiest metro area in the United States of America is it.


[Votive]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In most countries, democratic or otherwise, someone has to keep an eye on the public till and authorize expenditures. In the U.S. that's the Congress. The U.S. is somewhat hampered by the kind of divided government you don't see in Westminster-style parliamentary systems though.



OTOH, Congress doesn't have to dissolve and reorganize. That's my knee-jerk objection to parliamentary systems.

Parliament evidently works well for many countries. Here, we expect stability. If we had a parliament, the gov't would probably be reconstituted 2-3 times a month--at least.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Heard an interesting commentary on NPR that pointed out since the use of earmarks--a system that appropriated money to a certain project in a specific congressional district--was eliminated the budgeting process has really slowed down eventually becoming these stop-gap measures. Since congresspersons don't have a vested interest in getting a budget passed anymore, they are willing to just kick the can down the road just a little at a time.

Problem is, people cannot plan research projects without knowing that they have long-term funding for them. Military effectiveness becomes a problem with delayed maintenance of planes, ships, tanks and other equipment and the US infrastructure continues to deteriorate.

It does not help to have someone who claims to be a deal maker say he will sign whatever immigration policy the Congress comes up with only to have him denounce what he had already said he would sign.

I hope this impass can be resolved quicky.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Personally, I think it might be a good idea to cut/withhold the salaries of members of Congress who organize a shutdown.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
I like the thought, GK!
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
A brief aside: Having bought 'Fire and Fury', and working my way through it, I find that there are quite a few misprints. On several occasions, there are letters missing or added, and at least in one place even the clearly erroneous repetition of an entire phrase.

Do others reading the book have the same - shall we call it - impression?

(The content of the book is fairly interesting though, so far.)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sounds as if the book was printed in some haste - was there a particular reason to hurry?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If we had a parliament, the gov't would probably be reconstituted 2-3 times a month--at least.

I empty my trash more often than that. Why would it be bad to empty Congress' trash on that schedule?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O Miss Amanda, be careful what you wish for!

New governments every few weeks are not an unmixed blessing, as countries like Italy can testify... [Paranoid]

OTOH, it would save the unmitigated b**tards from having all the fun...

IJ
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea if all the politicians from the president down not only were not paid but also had their pay docked for the duration of the shut down. It might concentrate minds wonderfully!
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O Miss Amanda, be careful what you wish for!

New governments every few weeks are not an unmixed blessing, as countries like Italy can testify... [Paranoid]

OTOH, it would save the unmitigated b**tards from having all the fun...

IJ

You would need a system of PR though I suspect. Minority governments here have been remarkably stubborn survivors - witness the Callaghan government at the end of the 70s, although admittedly it started off as a ( very thin) majority government if my memory serves me correctly....
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes indeed, though PR, too, is not necessarily an unmixed blessing...

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I forgot to add that sometimes anything seems better than the yah-boo-sucks, infantile, toddler behaviour of our elected 'representatives'.

And we pay the bu**ers, too..... [Mad]

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Sounds as if the book was printed in some haste - was there a particular reason to hurry?

[Paranoid]

IJ

The main subject of the book was trying to sue the publisher to stop the presses -- so, of course, the publisher ran the presses as fast as possible. (And I'm sure the publisher was grateful for the extra publicity provided by said subject of the book.)
[Smile]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea if all the politicians from the president down not only were not paid but also had their pay docked for the duration of the shut down. It might concentrate minds wonderfully!

Most of these folks are rich enough that it probably wouldn’t put too much of a squeeze on them.

Yesterday, the President tweeted that it was a beautiful day for all women to march ... in celebration of the amazing economic accomplishments of the last year, and low women’s unemployment.

This is third-degree black belt trolling, and I doubt that Trump was smart enough to come up with it on his own. His style is more the scorched earth, no holds barred personal insult. I have to think Sarah H. Sanders was responsible for that one. It’s much more in line with her standard press conference comebacks.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The Fat Orange Git just won't accept how bigly unpopular he is, will he?

@Pigwidgeon - yes, understood. I think the reason for haste was mentioned before, but slipped my mind, such as it is.

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

The tax bill and his impact on the Judiciary will hold even the squishy edges of the GOP base in line. He's now maneuvered the dims into a DACA compromise that will fund his border plans. I don't see how they escape it at this point.

Once that's done, 2020 will be a fait accompli.

IMO.

Apparently Trump could indeed have had a DACA/Wall compromise deal from Schuma, and may well have wanted it, but Kelly persuaded him to play hardball.

It remains to be seen who will win the blame game for the shutdown, but it seems a lot more risky for GOP 2018 election prospects than a DACA/Wall compromise. Particularly from someone who has lauded his deal making capability.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

The tax bill and his impact on the Judiciary will hold even the squishy edges of the GOP base in line. He's now maneuvered the dims into a DACA compromise that will fund his border plans. I don't see how they escape it at this point.

Once that's done, 2020 will be a fait accompli.

IMO.

Apparently Trump could indeed have had a DACA/Wall compromise deal from Schuma, and may well have wanted it, but Kelly persuaded him to play hardball.

It remains to be seen who will win the blame game for the shutdown, but it seems a lot more risky for GOP 2018 election prospects than a DACA/Wall compromise. Particularly from someone who has lauded his deal making capability.

A DACA deal will irritate some portion of Trump's base for certain, but it's difficult to see how the GOP will be damaged by it in 2018 when combined with an extension of funding for CHIP, and billions of dollars for the wall.

The dims may have been to the well one too many times trying to weaponize a shutdown. It is easy to see it blowing up in their faces.

We'll see what happens. As the old adage goes, "that's why we play the game."
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The Fat Orange Git just won't accept how bigly unpopular he is, will he?

@Pigwidgeon - yes, understood. I think the reason for haste was mentioned before, but slipped my mind, such as it is.

IJ

I heard in my insomnia a BBC4 program, and in more civilized times on CBC1, enough to understand that with his base of people, he's basically a saviour, a Jesus figure. Thought of as honest and plain speaking. They may see pussy grabbing and racism as something which actually makes him more attractive. More like them. Excepting being filthy rich.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
A brief aside: Having bought 'Fire and Fury', and working my way through it, I find that there are quite a few misprints. [...]

It is strangely satisfying to slag off the guy that slags off 45. From the UK paperback, published by Little, Brown, I give you p. 107, line 3:
quote:
Bannon was making his first official pubic (sic!) appearance of the Trump presidency [...]
Just sayin'.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Alas, the copy editors are fewer at publishing houses today. Your complaint is not rare. People believe that spellcheck will do the job. But it takes an intelligent reader to spot that pubic/public error. A wiggly red line is not going to appear under it on your Word document.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Indeed. However, I spurted Fake News, and retract: the passage is on p.127, not 107. Weak!
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
When the US split, they took half of Responsible Government but not all.

I think it a fine idea that if the Government cannot get a Supply bill through, it has to resign. Immediately.

The Crown, er, Executive does not take advice from chumps.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
On the [URL=so-called government shutdown], this writer notes how it's the poor and powerless who usually suffer.[/URL] There's always agitation to tie Congressional salaries to keeping government going, but most of them are millionaires. My idea is to tie keeping government open to the HVAC systems. If the government closes, ho heat or air conditioning. Not much bite today, when it was 60 degrees here, but next week, ah!
And, if you lose the heat, you clearly need to drain the pipes and shut down the water, it's only good housekeeping.
I wouldn't cut the electric until after that.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Dammit, didn't paste the url right, sorry. And now I've missed the edit window. Let me see if I can find it again.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea if all the politicians from the president down not only were not paid but also had their pay docked for the duration of the shut down. It might concentrate minds wonderfully!

Most of these folks are rich enough that it probably wouldn’t put too much of a squeeze on them.

Yesterday, the President tweeted that it was a beautiful day for all women to march ... in celebration of the amazing economic accomplishments of the last year, and low women’s unemployment.

This is third-degree black belt trolling, and I doubt that Trump was smart enough to come up with it on his own. His style is more the scorched earth, no holds barred personal insult. I have to think Sarah H. Sanders was responsible for that one. It’s much more in line with her standard press conference comebacks.

Have to admit it's hilarious, no matter the actual source.

As to docking pay, Trump has donated his salary thus far so that would have no impact on him personally.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
There are two differences between Australia's federal system and the United States' system in the area of supply, two I want to point out anyway. No, three. First, we call bills about funding Govt supply bills. Second, these bills only require a simple majority in both houses. Third, if supply fails, there is a reserve power resting in the Crown to dismiss the Govt and call an election. I think this power only works as a fail-safe in Westminster systems, where the executive comes out of the legislature.

I think that supply bills can't deal with other subjects, to avoid the Government getting controversial matters through under threat of an election.

Elections are powerful persuaders of politicians. They really concentrate the mind, much more than the threat of the loss of benefits for a month or so. Even if the leadership of a party wants to play brinkmanship, they have to convince their members in vulnerable electorates to play along with them. That really does act as a brake on trashing the joint.

We have regularly changed Prime Ministers since 2008, but much of that has resulted from internal partyroom shenanigans. It's called knifing. The Government remains, its just that the Emperor has a new face. That's only instability in the media, who love the drama.

Nevertheless, this is all just me trying to display my intellect like a peacock displays its tail. I'll just try to do it on the other side of the park to people like Croessus. I reckon there is about as much chance of meaningful reform on this point in the USA as there is of Trump being happy with his youngest boy dating a Dreamer.

One last thing. I remember people slapping me down when I suggested the filibuster was unhelpful for effective Government. This little 60% rule comes out of the same box.

Toad, get to work. You're going to be late.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Alas, the copy editors are fewer at publishing houses today. Your complaint is not rare. People believe that spellcheck will do the job. But it takes an intelligent reader to spot that pubic/public error. A wiggly red line is not going to appear under it on your Word document.

I once met one of the last of the traditional copy editors in Canada, where she would read aloud the text, and her colleague check through it. On occasion, in a particularly idiosyncratic form of passive-aggression, she would psalm-chant the text as she knew it would particularly annoy her colleague.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
romanlion--

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
As to docking pay, Trump has donated his salary thus far so that would have no impact on him personally.

FWIW, I only suggested that for members of Congress, not the president.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Sorry. I didn't realize someone else had suggested it, too. I think romanlion's comment was addressed to them.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
What interesting news - to what deserving cause has Orange McGlumface donated his huuuuuuge salary?

[Eek!]

IJ
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... As to docking pay, Trump has donated his salary thus far so that would have no impact on him personally.

Citation needed. A tax receipt for a charitable donation, for example.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
When the US split, they took half of Responsible Government but not all.

I think it a fine idea that if the Government cannot get a Supply bill through, it has to resign. Immediately.

The Crown, er, Executive does not take advice from chumps.

SPK has identified the core of the problem. There is a theory that the US constitution took a view of parliamentary practice at a transitional stage, and fossilized it.

The preamble states very clearly the purpose of government (...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty etc), and that the constitution is established to that end. When the institutions established by that constitution fail to deliver those ends, there is no mechanism to correct that. Perhaps the no-payment initiative might work (especially if health and pension benefits, and parking passes, are included!).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
... As to docking pay, Trump has donated his salary thus far so that would have no impact on him personally.

Citation needed. A tax receipt for a charitable donation, for example.
Yeah, I wouldn't believe him without a paper trail. Word around here is that he donated it to government agencies that he favors, but he takes it as a charitable deduction on his taxes. So we taxpayers pay twice.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
When the US split, they took half of Responsible Government but not all.

I think it a fine idea that if the Government cannot get a Supply bill through, it has to resign. Immediately.

The Crown, er, Executive does not take advice from chumps.

SPK has identified the core of the problem. There is a theory that the US constitution took a view of parliamentary practice at a transitional stage, and fossilized it.
I was thinking about this when Crœsos posted upthread about cloture (one of those words where I had an idea what it meant without ever having met it before). Apart from Westminster practice, the US constitution was significantly influenced by what was going on in France at the time. Certainly it drew something from British parliamentary practice, but we need to look also to the ideas which found fruition in revolutionary France.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What interesting news - to what deserving cause has Orange McGlumface donated his huuuuuuge salary?

[Eek!]

IJ

Government.

Is there any more deserving and noble cause than that?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
There are two differences between Australia's federal system and the United States' system in the area of supply, two I want to point out anyway. No, three. First, we call bills about funding Govt supply bills. Second, these bills only require a simple majority in both houses. Third, if supply fails, there is a reserve power resting in the Crown to dismiss the Govt and call an election. I think this power only works as a fail-safe in Westminster systems, where the executive comes out of the legislature.

As I noted earlier the U.S. Congress does have a process called "reconciliation" by which a bill can pass with a simple majority. This is supposed to be used to make sure that an obstinate minority can't shut down the U.S. government so it's usually reserved for appropriating an operating budget for the federal government. Unfortunately Mitch McConnell had other priorities and used the reconciliation process for other things (you get one reconciliation bill per year), gambling that he could get a budget passed through normal legislation. At this point that assessment looks incorrect.

It should be noted that during the negotiations for the tax bill McConnell secured the vote of Jeff Flake by promising that DACA legislation would be taken up by the end of January. Since this hasn't happened the Democrats' unwillingness to accept McConnell's promise to deal with DACA at a later date (essentially the same promise he made Flake and similar to promises McConnell made to Susan Collins about health care legislation that have likewise failed to materialize) is quite understandable.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No, they've proved untrustworthy with their promises so often that this makes all the negotiations much more difficult. I personally would not trust McConnell with a stick of gum.

These are from the POST, but cheerier: the pussygrabber may have permanently awakened a snarling tigress. I will add that I am in this photograph, just beyond the arch of that concrete bridge.

And polling data to back that up.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What interesting news - to what deserving cause has Orange McGlumface donated his huuuuuuge salary?

[Eek!]

IJ

Government.

Is there any more deserving and noble cause than that?

[Killing me] Trump wouldn’t recognise deserving or noble if they ran over him in a truck [Killing me]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just so - and America doesn't have a government at the moment, does it?

Soooo......perhaps Glowering McFatFace is simply donating money to himself.....

.....or to one of his egregious Prosperity Gospel friends, like this creep.

[Projectile]

IJ
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What interesting news - to what deserving cause has Orange McGlumface donated his huuuuuuge salary?

[Eek!]

IJ

Government.

Is there any more deserving and noble cause than that?

[Killing me] Trump wouldn’t recognise deserving or noble if they ran over him in a truck [Killing me]
And yet he has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National Parks, Department of Education, and Health and Human Services.

Weird innit?


[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Did he -do- it, or did he say/tweet/bloviate that he did it? He is on record as promising to donate money to lots of causes, and just 'forgetting' to actually write the check. Only when it appears in the newspaper did he belatedly actually fork out.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, I'm afraid the Orange Father Of Lies might need to provide proof of his huuuuuuuuge and really, really, bigly generosity.

Covfefe, anyone?

IJ
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Just so - and America doesn't have a government at the moment, does it?

IJ

Sure it does! Just the essential bits...
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Confronted by the budget impasse a Twitter user named panarmstrong created this gem, which is making the rounds. UKians should know that Tide is the brand name of an American laundry detergent:

The Brunch Scene:
Dem: "Let's order some eggs for breakfast."
GOP: "I'm not ordering food until you get folks at the next table to eat some Tide Pods. Those things look delicious."
Dem: "No way. Tide Pods aren't food."
GOP: "Well I guess you don't really want eggs, then."
GOP (loudly, to room): "THE DEMOCRATS DONT WANT ANY OF YOU TO HAVE EGGS!"
Dem: "You said to get eggs, we'd have to make the folks at that table eat Tide Pods." (points)
Folks At Table: "We don't want to eat Tide Pods, that's dangerous!"
GOP: "But they look delicious!"
Dem: "Tide Pods may look delicious, but they're really laundry detergent. You can't eat them, you use them to wash clothes."
GOP: "Why can't we do both? You're taking away Real Americans' God-given freedom to eat Tide Pods!"
Dem (incredulous) "What?"
GOP: "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA
Dem (aside): "This happens EVERY time we try to hang out."
Guy in MAGA Hat from Another Table: "One of my friends back home ate a Tide Pod once and he was fine. Said it was way better than bath salts."
(A NYT reporter suddenly appears & asks to interview Guy in MAGA Hat.)
Dem (loudly, to room): "OK folks I've looked up the list of ingredients in Tide Pods."
(Dem reads long list of complicated sounding ingredients in monotone voice. Adds emphasis to a word no one has ever heard of.)
(Dem finishes reading list of Tide Pod ingredients.)
Dem: "And that's why you shouldn't eat Tide Pods." (Sits)
Guy in MAGA Hat (to GOP & NYT reporter): "Is she still talking?"
GOP: "Too focused on ingredient politics."
NYT (writes) ::Tide Pods divide hurts Dem in Heartland::
Dem: "OK maybe we can work across the aisle and come up with a bipartisan solution. How about we compromise an a la carte Tide Pod with every order of eggs?"
GOP: "Nope. The Folks at That Table have to eat the Tide Pods, or we're not getting any eggs for brunch."
Dem: "But the Folks at That Table don't want to eat Tide Pods for brunch! But they'd agree to Tide Pods on their plate."
Folks at That Table: "No actually we don't want Tide Pods anywhere near our food, thanks."
Dem: "Sorry. The American people want bipartisan solutions."
GOP: "No, the American People want the Folks at That Table to eat some Tide Pods, and they want Democrats like you to stop obstructing the rest of us from eating eggs."
Guy in MAGA Hat: "Yeah!"
NYT reporter (writes) ::Are Dem Policies Creating Egg Shortage?::
Server Working the Brunch Shift: "They. Are. Arguing. About. Eating. Fucking. Tide. Pods."
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O, I am so relieved to hear that! The Free World is still in good hands...as long as they keep away from pu**ies.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
My last post was in reply (?) to romanlion, but it does equally well as a reply to Brenda's!

[Killing me]

IJ
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Don't know if this means a temporary truce?


Government shutdown truce?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Don't know if this means a temporary truce?

Government shutdown truce?

The outline of the deal in the Senate seems to break down to three things:


The government re-opens if the House can be persuaded to accept the Senate bill as written and Trump agrees to sign it.

McConnell has promised a bill to cover DACA at some point. On the one hand McConnell's promises are essentially worthless, and even if the Senate takes up the matter there's no guarantee the House will. On the other hand, if nothing happens the situation replays itself in three weeks, and CHIP is funded for six years.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Brenda, I'm ok with Tide, but I thought a pod was a thing you listen to. Also, what's a MAGA hat? Dialogue funny, but in a depressing way.

Also, the failing Washington Post wants my bloody money.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Croesos

An accurate summary. Behind the scenes, I did wonder if McConnell and Schumer have agreed on some way of trying to get more control over,and consistency out of, the court of the Mad Orange Emperor. That's probably necessary to prevent quite serious levels of administrative and fiscal chaos.

[ 22. January 2018, 22:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Here is a MAGA hat.

IJ
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Brenda, I'm ok with Tide, but I thought a pod was a thing you listen to. Also, what's a MAGA hat? Dialogue funny, but in a depressing way.

Also, the failing Washington Post wants my bloody money.

a) Tide Pod challenge on Wiki.

b) MAGA on Wiki, as well.

c) I signed up for the failing WaPo a few months ago, and for a VERY reasonable fee (a mere $19 per year!), renewable at the same price. Go, and do likewise! It's definitely worth it, and you get a free 30-day pass each month you can give away to a friend (or foe). [Smile]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
B-b-b-but Trump has been awarded an A+ for his first year!
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
The devil can quote scripture for his purpose too. Should he also get an A+?
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Oh my God. They seem bent on destroying the Christian brand along with the US one. How does 44.2's effort to end DACA -- to say nothing of his support for white supremacists -- square with "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek," etc.?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Has anyone heard if Schumer has regained consciousness? That was a pretty serious thump he took!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I don't think he's in the NFL concussion protocol.

On the A+ scorecard, Tony Campolo observed more than 20 years ago that the unholy alliance between the GOP and the evangelical right seemed on course to set back the cause of Christianity in the US for 50 years. Looks like he was right.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
How does 44.2's effort to end DACA...square with "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek," etc.?

I suppose we will see, once he signs proper legislation addressing the DACA issue by spring. Something Obama was never able to do, even with majorities in both Houses of Congress.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Behind the scenes, I did wonder if McConnell and Schumer have agreed on some way of trying to get more control over,and consistency out of, the court of the Mad Orange Emperor.

By delivering him another significant win? Odd strategy...
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
I signed up for the failing WaPo a few months ago, and for a VERY reasonable fee (a mere $19 per year!), renewable at the same price. Go, and do likewise! It's definitely worth it, and you get a free 30-day pass each month you can give away to a friend (or foe). [Smile]

They want to charge me $100/year ($150 if it includes the monthly bonus subscriptions).
[Mad]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There's no "Christian brand". It appears though there's a great mistaking of the Kingdom of God with the American Dream. Though for many the American Dream is quite the nightmare, particularly, as I understand it, those in poverty, brown and black people, people who live in shithole countries whose governments have agreed that multinationals may export their natural resources among them.

Since I'm talking of dreams and Freud wrote The "Interpretation of Dreams" maybe we could wonder if there isn't some weird psychosexual backstory to trumpy. It is intriguing that for the Ancient Greeks small penises meant self control; we could also reference small hands which excessively masturbate (twitter) his substitute penis (his phone: perhaps larger than what it symbolizes?).
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
OF COURSE that's what a MAGA hat is. I was imagining some special type of cowboy hat or something. I did subscribe to the Post (I think it was the Post) last year, but I found I wasn't reading enough of their stuff, plus I had to call America on the eau de cologne to cancel, which annoyed me. Instead, I look at the Sacramento Bee for my Yank news. Lots of ads masquerading as news, but they also rewrite stuff from the major dailies.

I don't think Trump needs anything to substitute for his John Thomas. I think he is very very familiar with his person in an intimate way. I think he knows himself best in this particular field.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If you have a public library card, go to your library's web site and log on. (You already do this, if you're reserving or renewing your materials on line.) Then see if they subscribe to the Post, or any other periodical you're interested in -- the NY Times, Newsweek, whatever. You should be able to read it on their web site through their portal.

If you happen to have a .mil or .edu email address, the Post will give you a free subscription.

The next time they give me a free coupon I'll pop over and offer it here.

Meanwhile, Crooked Donny is curiously absent.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
And yet he has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National Parks, Department of Education, and Health and Human Services.

Weird innit?


[Roll Eyes]

Citation needed again. Like, say, a tax receipt for a charitable donation. Or confirmation from the recipient of the donation(s).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Trump claims victory, and personal credit, no matter what happens. He spins, shifts ground, misrepresents, lies. That's what anyone else in government has to deal with. it is going to give rise to odd, covert strategies until the dark days are over. No point in being upfront, playing fair. Trump doesn't know the meaning of those things.

[ 23. January 2018, 01:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I don't think Trump needs anything to substitute for his John Thomas. I think he is very very familiar with his person in an intimate way. I think he knows himself best in this particular field.

Not surprising, since there's so little to know.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you have a public library card, go to your library's web site and log on. (You already do this, if you're reserving or renewing your materials on line.) Then see if they subscribe to the Post, or any other periodical you're interested in -- the NY Times, Newsweek, whatever. You should be able to read it on their web site through their portal.
[/URL]

Doesn't seem to work, and -- more importantly -- I assume the links you post wouldn't work.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
{Insert asshole here} claims victory, and personal credit, no matter what happens. He spins, shifts ground, misrepresents, lies. That's what anyone else in government has to deal with. it is going to give rise to odd, covert strategies until the dark days are over. No point in being upfront, playing fair.

As opposed to what modern American politico, if you don't mind?
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
And yet he has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National Parks, Department of Education, and Health and Human Services.

Weird innit?


[Roll Eyes]

Citation needed again. Like, say, a tax receipt for a charitable donation. Or confirmation from the recipient of the donation(s).
Check his tax returns. If you can't find it there and consider CNN trustworthy...try
Google...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Come off it. Politics everywhere is affected by deals, compromises, money. Sir Humphrey described the common characteristic as moral malleability. It's a struggle to preserve any personal integrity. But Trump's personal shittiness has dropped the low bar to subterranean.

If you want to argue that's only a difference of degree, rather than kind, I'd be inclined to agree. But differences of degree are as important as differences of kind. Trump's degrees of shittiness, coupled with his capacity for chaos, his vanity and his incompetence, are now a matter of record. A new world record of shittiness, at that.

[ 23. January 2018, 05:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
{Insert asshole here} claims victory, and personal credit, no matter what happens. He spins, shifts ground, misrepresents, lies. That's what anyone else in government has to deal with. it is going to give rise to odd, covert strategies until the dark days are over. No point in being upfront, playing fair.

As opposed to what modern American politico, if you don't mind?
If all your politicians are really like that, you are clearly incapable of governing yourselves. La République needs to put a task force together and invade [Razz] .
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
la vie en rouge

That made me smile. But it's not so bad, I think. To misquote the end of Animal Farm, all politicians are shitty, but some are shittier than others.


Trump is not really a politician, more an example of amoral and uncorrected privileged capitalist shittiness.

Here are a few illustrations that he is a stranger to the truth.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If you want to argue that's only a difference of degree, rather than kind, I'd be inclined to agree. But differences of degree are as important as differences of kind.

I would also argue that its a difference in degree - largely because I think that to do otherwise exculpates the actions of the Republican party for the last few decades.

Reagan was a bizarre and weird figure - right until the time he wasn't and he was voted in.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
And yet he has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National Parks, Department of Education, and Health and Human Services.

Weird innit?


[Roll Eyes]

Citation needed again. Like, say, a tax receipt for a charitable donation. Or confirmation from the recipient of the donation(s).
Check his tax returns. If you can't find it there and consider CNN trustworthy...try
Google...

Donald Trump's wealth is on record is c $3bn, so that is pocket change.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
$3 billion?

I hope he's arranged for HUUUUUGE pockets in his shroud....

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
That's what he -says-. Is it just the 'value' of his name slapped onto golf courses and apartment blocks? I very much doubt that it's cash on deposit in banks that are not Russian. Nobody can know without a look at his tax returns and he is not releasing them. It is a fact that he's declared bankruptcy on a good few of his projects; that's a losery thing to do. Could it be that there is not much cash in those accounts?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, maybe - I'm just looking forward to the time (God forgive me) when a shroud - with or without the bigliest pockets ever found on a shroud - becomes necessary.

IJ
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

Check his tax returns. If you can't find it there and consider CNN trustworthy...try
Google...

He hasn't released his tax returns. All that reporting is from media advisories and press releases - it is NOT proof the donations were actually made.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The outline of the deal in the Senate seems to break down to three things:

...

McConnell has promised a bill to cover DACA at some point. On the one hand McConnell's promises are essentially worthless, and even if the Senate takes up the matter there's no guarantee the House will. On the other hand, if nothing happens the situation replays itself in three weeks, and CHIP is funded for six years.

Except that the Democrats - and I'm millimetres away from calling them the Dims like romanlion does - have negotiated away another piece of the ACA. [brick wall] [Help] They would have done better if they'd left town on Friday and let the Republicans try to sort it out on their own. [Mad] Stupid, stupid, stupid.

And yes, McConnell's promises are worthless - he once filibustered a bill he'd introduced only minutes earlier when it looked like it might actually be voted on and approved immediately.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Trump is not really a politician, more an example of amoral and uncorrected privileged capitalist shittiness.

I think he suffers from affluenza.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
The Nectarine Narcissist donating his salary back to government is rather like a parishoner throwing a dollar bill into the collection plate while taking out someone’s hundred- dollar bill.

Meanwhile there’s all that missing Inauguration fund money...financing Meals on Wheels or disabled veterans’ programs, right? [Mad]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Trump is not really a politician...

And yet has given Durbin, Graham, and Schumer quite the lesson in their own game over the last week.

I can hear the recriminations now when he signs an immigration reform bill....

"Flaming racist incompetent Trump delivers dreamer amnesty for cynical, political spite!"

I've little doubt that something along those very lines will appear on these pages.

[Killing me]


Granted it will require some skill from the Speaker, which is a concern for Trump I'm sure, but now that Schumer has ceded his leverage the package will likely hit all of Trump's enforcement requirements, while only directly addressing the relatively small DACA population.

That will make it more likely to pass the house, as well as extremely popular with a broad swath of voters.

IMO, of course.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Granted it will require some skill from the Speaker, which is a concern for Trump I'm sure, but now that Schumer has ceded his leverage the package will likely hit all of Trump's enforcement requirements, while only directly addressing the relatively small DACA population.

Has Schumer ceded any leverage? It seems like there's just as much leverage in three weeks when the continuing resolution expires as there was last weekend. He may have even more, since Republicans can no longer hold CHIP kids hostage.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
So what Wapo seems to indicate is that when Thimple shuts the fuck up and plays with his toys the Republicans. even with their increasing lurch to the Flat Earth Right™ can still play politics better than the divided and still somewhat aimless Dems.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm not sure the Dems have been dims. This way, with CHIP out if the way, doesn't the pressure reverse back on POTUS and his hard-liners. McConnell is now insulated, particularly if attempts to resolve DACA get frustrated by the White House.

Trump is going to have to make his mind up. I wonder what Mr Orange Jello really wants.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I think it's pretty clear to all observers that the Dealmaking Emperor has no clothes. The legend was cut from the same cloth as the great income you could make with your degree from Trump University, or how Mexico was going to pay for a wall. His real gift seems to be finding sources of funding from places most people wouldn't go.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
A shutdown is a bad thing. We want to end them quickly. This seemed to involve four issues: the shutdown itself (which nobody likes), DACA (a matter of contention), the CHIP program (which almost nobody opposed but was used as a bargaining point) and money for Trump's wall (which is favored by few except Trump). The Democrats got the CHIP funding, Trump still does not have money for his wall, DACA is still an issue, and the shutdown ended (for now). In less than three weeks, we have another confrontation, but CHIP is off the table. I think the Democrats have done fairly well here.

Of course, anything might happen in three weeks.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I think it's pretty clear to all observers that the Dealmaking Emperor has no clothes.

I really don't think this is the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/22/trump-great-job-muncie-indiana-year-election

You can dig up similar stories from websites on all parts of the political spectrum. It's just another variant of 'people vote against their best interests', maybe they don't, maybe they just view their interests differently: https://youtu.be/BsqGITb0W4A?t=2852
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/22/trump-great-job-muncie-indiana-year-election

You can dig up similar stories from websites on all parts of the political spectrum. It's just another variant of 'people vote against their best interests', maybe they don't, maybe they just view their interests differently: https://youtu.be/BsqGITb0W4A?t=2852

Yeah, for some reason there seem to be a gazillion "Trump Supporters Still Support Trump" articles out there. While true, it hardly seems unexpected and thus hardly seems like news. Remember in 2009 when every week or so some major publication would run an article where they sought out Obama voters and discovered that they still supported Obama? Yeah, me neither.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
No, I agree about his dimbulbed supporters; they're shackled to him for all time.

I am talking about his reputation as the greatest dealmaker ever. Do you still believe that? Does anybody?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
This seemed to involve four issues: the shutdown itself (which nobody likes), DACA (a matter of contention), the CHIP program (which almost nobody opposed but was used as a bargaining point) and money for Trump's wall (which is favored by few except Trump).

I'm not sure we can take universal support of CHIP as a given. Most of Congress on both sides of the aisle say they support CHIP, but funding for the program expired on September 30, 2017. If nobody opposed renewing it, it would have been renewed sometime in the last three and half months.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
...Trump still does not have money for his wall...

But.... he told us the Mexicans are paying for it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Those naughty Mexicans are Bad Brown Hombres, who don't wanna play with Orange McJaffaface...

[Razz]

(Was Mexico included in the list of sh**hole countries, BTW?)

IJ
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, for some reason there seem to be a gazillion "Trump Supporters Still Support Trump" articles out there.

Contrarianism of a certain sort sells, which doesn't mean that Trump's supporters don't have their own reasons for continuing to support him.

Equally widespread in parts of the press - and occasionally evident here - is that "Lyin' Don" will prove to be a disaster over four years, and that people will 'realise' this, and (unsaid) that even another centrist establishment hack can defeat him.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
In what way did Schumer cede any part of the ACA? I have seen nothing to indicate that.

Schumer was basically caught in the middle. There were a group of 20 senators--a number of whom are up for reelection telling the leadership they would vote to extend the funding and there were a few more liberal Senators who are safe in their seats that wanted to hold out. Basically, he had to cut his loses as much as he could.

And, yes, the ball is now in the Republican court. If they don't come up with somethng within 16 days, the Democrats will be a little tougher.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In what way did Schumer cede any part of the ACA?

It suspended tax increases from the ACA that were not to take effect until Illary was elected POTUS.

They had been suspended before.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Thanks for posting that article Chris. Its a timely reminder that those who take a different view of Trump can be nice people in other respects. I love that one person carries spare socks in his car to give to those who might need them.

It is also frightening to think how good a job the right has done in discrediting the mainstream media, an in the case of Fox, displacing them. They are trying to do that here too, but I am very much out of their target range given the media I consume.

It means, I fear, that the American articles I read tearing strips off Trump, have limited relevance.

Please, somebody, tell me I'm wrong.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I was feeling rather disheartened by the vote yesterday until I read an op- ed in Wonkette suggesting that Shumer and Pelosi were shrewder negotiations than they’re being given credit for. It pointed out that the compromise provided political cover for both liberal Democrats in safe seats and for vulnerable red- state Dems who could be seen as moderate peacemakers. It took one group of vulnerable human hostages away from the Republicans for the next six years. And it puts the onus on McConnell to keep his promises or wind up as the fall guy in the next vote.It also suggested that virulent anti- immigrant Trump appointees like Stephen Miller and John Kelly might find themselves losing favor with the regime if the narrative starts focusing on the xenophobic nutbar wing of the GOP — bad optics and all that.

I hope it’s true.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Trump is going to have to make his mind up. I wonder what Mr Orange Jello really wants.

I don't think this hurts his feelings.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Trump is going to have to make his mind up. I wonder what Mr Orange Jello really wants.

I don't think this hurts his feelings.
This might dampen them a little
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Must admit, Zappa, that I'm feeling pretty queasy about that issue.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Must admit, Zappa, that I'm feeling pretty queasy about that issue.

Yes, it’s not just the financial crash, it’s the lurch to the right which seems to follow them. [Frown]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Must admit, Zappa, that I'm feeling pretty queasy about that issue.

Yes, it’s not just the financial crash, it’s the lurch to the right which seems to follow them. [Frown]
We seem to be incapable of learning from history. We consume more than we produce, then we blame Other People when it inevitably goes tits-up, and unscrupulous politicians exploit this.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Trump is going to have to make his mind up. I wonder what Mr Orange Jello really wants.

I don't think this hurts his feelings.
This might dampen them a little
Anyone with a dollar and a thought in their head has seen these conditions building since
well before Trump's ascension. Growth is preferable to the alternative if we hope to absorb all the Keynesian idiocy of the last decade without an actual crash.

Could be too late anyway, who knows?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Americans, just be grateful for this mercy: your President can't have people shot.
 
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Americans, just be grateful for this mercy: your President can't have people shot.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Americans, just be grateful for this mercy: your President can't have people shot.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
Actually. yes he can.

Without arrest and with a drone even.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Americans, just be grateful for this mercy: your President can't have people shot.

Now who's being naïve, Kay?
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
The Family Research Council head says that evangelical conservatives are willing to overlook Trump’s past behavior so long as he delivers for them on policy.


quote:
It’s a developing relationship, but I’ll have to say this: From a policy standpoint, he has delivered more than any other president in my lifetime.”

Later, Perkins adds, “I think the president is providing the leadership we need at this time, in our country and in our culture.”

As a moral leader? I ask.

“As a leader,” Perkins replies.


 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The Family Research Council head says that evangelical conservatives are willing to overlook Trump’s past behavior so long as he delivers for them on policy.

Apparently "Mulligan" is Protestant-speak for "indulgence", something which can be attained through the appointment of enough Federalist Society judges.

For the record, Pope Tony I is the head of an SPLC-designated hate group. The SPLC doesn't designate every anti-LGBT group as a hate group, just those like the FRC who persistently spread malicious anti-gay falsehoods to undercut equal rights under the law.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The term 'evangelical' is probably lost to us now. I only hope the word 'Christian' doesn't go down the toilet as well. It's not looking good.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps a subject for another thread, but what other word could be used as a substitute for 'Christian'?

Given that 'Christian' is now so often used in a pejorative sense...

IJ
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
If you want to ask depressing questions, try this: do you think the U.S. will survive as one nation for another 25 years?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The deception of the Christian community is pretty clearly forecast in the NT. But I think we just stand to our tacking, try to live out what we believe and pray daily for kingdom values to come into this crazy mixed up world.

Franklin Graham is either deceived, or actively participating in a deception. I've written to him. Calmly, reasonably, asking a few questions. If I get a stock reply, I'll write some more.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A (free) article about the future of Evangelicalism in the era of Pussygrabber. Hint: not good.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps a subject for another thread, but what other word could be used as a substitute for 'Christian'?

Given that 'Christian' is now so often used in a pejorative sense...

IJ

I like Jesus Freak. It reminds me of the book, "Hey JC, I read your Book." Also, Elton John uses it, so it has cred with the over-50's.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, and this one is even better: from a Baptist web site, thunder and brimstone.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Sigh, missed the edit window. I wanted to add Alexandra Petri's version of the Beatitudes Be aware that this is satire and from the Post, which will cost you a click.

A free click in which the former chairman of the RNC washes his hands of Christians.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Americans, just be grateful for this mercy: your President can't have people shot.

Now who's being naïve, Kay?
Then there's Nixon's plot to kill columnist Jack Anderson (Mother Jones). The most pertinent part starts about halfway down.

Interestingly, the article ends with:

quote:
Moreover, the book once again reminds us that at a crucial point in US history—when war was being waged, when the society was divided over fundamental social issues—the man in charge of the government was a venal, dishonest, and essentially psychopathic thug, whether or not he ordered Jack Anderson killed. And that was a story that Anderson spent years exposing.
Sound like any current situation?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, and this one is even better: from a Baptist web site, thunder and brimstone.

Wow. OMG. "Pen warmed up in hell", except in the other place.

Someone should take that to a print shop, make it into huge posters, and put them up at evangelical churches, organizations, and gathering places.

Thx for posting this, Brenda.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

In what way did Schumer cede any part of the ACA?

Romanlion replied:

It suspended tax increases from the ACA that were not to take effect until Illary was elected POTUS.

Please give me a citation for your assertion, romanlion. I cannot see anything in the extension that does that.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A (free) article about the future of Evangelicalism in the era of Pussygrabber. Hint: not good.

I'm not, and have never been, an evangelical Christian. I do have one quibble with this article, which two or three times references "rigorous theology." It's the very lack of this, in my view, which has rendered the evangelical point of view (at least as I've encountered it where I live) utterly repellent to me. To me, a rigorous theology is one which wrestles with the many paradoxes living at the heart of the faith. A rigorous theology, to me, comes to grips with human failings not by simply acknowledging and forgiving these, but by pressing for authentic behavioral change.

As far as I'm concerned, the evangelicals I've met and dealt with seem to represent not any "rigorous theology," but rather a sort of Christianity-Lite.

Not that I personally can lay any claim to possessing a rigorous theology, or even to being much of a Christian.

That said, I second the motion made above about Miguel de la Torre's fire and brimstone: let that word go forth.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A (free) article about the future of Evangelicalism in the era of Pussygrabber. Hint: not good.

This observation should fall under the "duh" category, I should think?:

quote:
A 2016 PRRI study found that the most common reason people give up on their childhood faith is that they no longer believe in its teachings.
What this article doesn't discuss is how these people can be so unyielding in some areas of sexual prudery, and then embrace and defend to the hilt a pussy-grabbing philanderer as being not only just fine, but exactly what our country needs. There is no hint in this article of the cognitive dissonance.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Don't they say that God sometimes uses sinners? I think they point to Cyrus for that good old Old Testament warrant.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Don't they say that God sometimes uses sinners?

Out of one side of their mouth, yes.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
IIRC, the only sin was that Cyrus was a Gentile.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ohher is right. It is precisely the lack of rigour in conservative evangelicalism which causes both the laager mentality and the moving away of the intelligent and questioning e.g Rachel Held Evans.

Plus the young see traditional approaches re LGBT folks as unkind, unfeeling, bigoted, hypocritical about the complexities of human sexuality.

Late edit.

It might be worth adding that on this side of the pond there is scope for intelligent questioning amongst evangelicals. There are IMO many who are trapped in the doleful self-enclosing ideology exposed by the article. But by no means all. Folks like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, are very popular amongst all the intelligent young evangelicals I know. And none of them think the traditional attitudes towards LGBT are right.

[ 25. January 2018, 10:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Another (free) article, rather sad: one of the great Bible colleges in the nation, unable to let go of its racism.

It is worth remembering that the foofaraw about LGBT is fairly recent. There was a deliberate policy change, engineered by Jerry Falwell and others of his kidney, when it became plain that naked racism was no longer going to fly in the US. They needed a new hobbyhorse to ride, and gays are easy to persecute.

The root sin in this country is racism. The unwillingness to sit beside Other People in the pews and treat them like brothers and sisters in Christ split the American church; it's why they are Southern Baptists or African Methodists. We take one step forward (Obama!) and then a big step back.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Another (free) article, rather sad: one of the great Bible colleges in the nation, unable to let go of its racism.

"But many of our donors are old, wealthy, white people and they have a certain idea of what godliness looks like"
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Another (free) article, rather sad: one of the great Bible colleges in the nation, unable to let go of its racism.

"But many of our donors are old, wealthy, white people and they have a certain idea of what godliness looks like"
It looks like a mirror.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Another (free) article, rather sad: one of the great Bible colleges in the nation, unable to let go of its racism.

"But many of our donors are old, wealthy, white people and they have a certain idea of what godliness looks like"
It looks like a mirror.
Privilege is a difficult thing. It is invisible to many who have it and when you challenge it, you challenge who the person is.
When one's identity is challenged, Hell even when one's ideas are challenged, it is a threat.
As in fight or flight response, as in addressing the issue isn't going to happen. Defence at all costs.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Privilege is a difficult thing. It is invisible to many who have it and when you challenge it, you challenge who the person is.
When one's identity is challenged, Hell even when one's ideas are challenged, it is a threat.

For a good illustration of this - look at the comments under that article. There are a whole bunch of people claiming that racism can't exist at MBI because they personally didn't see it, and that talk of privilege is divisive (complete with cheering from the peanut gallery)
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, this explains -everything-. Evangelicals are actually counting upon Trump to kick off the end of the world. I seriously doubt he is the Lamb of God, so does this make him the Great Satan? The link is from Newsweek, a free click.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Dispensationalism is a persistent weed, I'm afraid. And obsession with the future blinds people to responsibilities in the present.

It's just another illustration of crap theology. This time about eschatology.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I always thought God had better taste than to employ someone as odious as the Cinnamon Hitler to usher in the Last Days.

[Disappointed]

OTOH, it'll get the whole bloody business over and done with sooner rather than later.

IJ
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
[...] I seriously doubt he is the Lamb of God, so does this make him the Great Satan? The link is from Newsweek, a free click.

To be frank, from the link, Stucky the mummified dog did catch my attention somewhat more. And looks just as terrifying, and terrified!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the Post but is on their front page, so perhaps you could go there to view the photo. Which tells you all. The Trumps wanted to borrow a Van Gogh from the Guggenheim. And since you'd be eight separate kinds of fool to entrust a masterpiece to him, the museum suggested this piece instead.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Knowing the Trump family’s taste, they probably already have a gold-plated toilet.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is from the Post but is on their front page, so perhaps you could go there to view the photo.

Nope.
[Frown]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The Washington Post front page. If you go there now the photo is front and center.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
That article mentioned that a museum lending art to the First Couple is a thing. Surprising.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I wonder if they'll take it... and I wonder if they understand the point in making the offer.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Apart from the delight in reading about and seeing the Golden Throne, is it really up to a Director to make judgements based on their views? Wouldn't offering another painting be the more mature thing to do? It seems like it was only done to get news traction and the support of the left.

I acknowledge Trump as a loathsome human, but I feel uneasy about this.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Why? It's not like the toilet isn't an acknowledged work of art that was on display in the museum.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Apart from the delight in reading about and seeing the Golden Throne, is it really up to a Director to make judgements based on their views? Wouldn't offering another painting be the more mature thing to do? It seems like it was only done to get news traction and the support of the left.

I acknowledge Trump as a loathsome human, but I feel uneasy about this.

As long as you spell their name right.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Absolutely. It's G-u-g-g-e-. . .

Coat. Will go get.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
G-o-g-g-o
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Ooh. Saturday night massacre misfire! That's from the Guardian Australia. Sensibly, the Guardian has kept its Australian site free because the ABC site is a free public service here. WOOT for big government! Mind you, the right-wing press is paywalled, because the ABC doesn't impact upon that market as much.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Washington Post front page. If you go there now the photo is front and center.

Or here, big, from the Guggenheim.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ian--

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Apart from the delight in reading about and seeing the Golden Throne, is it really up to a Director to make judgements based on their views? Wouldn't offering another painting be the more mature thing to do? It seems like it was only done to get news traction and the support of the left.

I acknowledge Trump as a loathsome human, but I feel uneasy about this.

I think I see your point, and I don't know what was really intended. Sometime back, there was word that T was considering redoing the bathroom in the presidential apartment in gold, as he did with other things. So that's not totally out o the blue.

OTOH, the person from the Guggenheim presumably is responsible for keeping all the art collection safe. I don't know if T throws things when furious; but, if so, any borrowed art could damaged.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
FYI: T's State Of The Union Address is next Tuesday night.

Will be interesting to see whether he's there in person, or by TV, or if he simply tweets. (Tweet: "I'm the bestest president ever. We're making America great again. I hate everybody. Goodnight.")

There's a move to get the Congressional Democrats to boycott it. Personally, I think that would be both stupid and a bad strategy. They should at least attend. If they simply don't react, or play Monopoly on the carpet, or do a 60's style protest again, being there would at least show that they care and are doing their jobs.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Knowing the Trump family’s taste, they probably already have a gold-plated toilet.

All part of their attempt to polish a turd.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
Spokesman for the Israeli government, Mr D Trump, has told the Palestinians that now I've undermined the piece of territory most precious to you, it's up to you to talk peace - or I'll take away your money.

Presumably he hopes to build a Trump hotel on either East Jerusalem or as part of a new Israeli "settlement" somewhere in the disputed "occupied" territory and wants Netahyahu's endorsement to do so. So bugger the Palestinians , who are poor and brown and therefore of no account.
 
Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Why? It's not like the toilet isn't an acknowledged work of art that was on display in the museum.

And in use in the museum.

https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/maurizio-cattelan-america

Sorry I missed using using it, Nicolemr. But at least I got to listen to and read Fox News bleat this morning.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Though it seems to me, on reflection, that Trump even asking the Guggenheim for a loan when the director is known to be anti-Trump, is a provocation, sort of like saying "nyah nyah, you don't like me but you have to do this for me", and the director replying "no I don't."
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The president can and has asked to borrow art before; I believe the practice began with the Reagans. The Obamas mainly had modern abstract art. I am certain that all due safeguards are taken so that the kids and Bo the dog don't damage the pieces.

A Van Gogh is a pretty big ask, however. Also be aware that the Guggenheim is a New York City museum. (As I recall the Obamas borrowed from the Corcoran here in DC.) Everybody in the Big Apple knows and loathes Crooked Don from days gone by. (Have I posted the Vanity Fair magazine photo retrospective of the history of Trump's hair recently? That's the kind of love he inspires.) He has never been a good neighbor, and has screwed over enough people in his home town that no one is inclined to do him any favors.

The more important brouhaha of the day is the word that Lyin' Don wanted to fire Mueller last year, but was talked out of it. A quick summary of the importance of this, alas from the Post. Loose lips sink ships; it may be that all the lawyers will need is the self-incrimination that he pours out unprompted.

For your amusement, a friend on Twitter posts:
Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray Bob Mueller’s job he’ll keep
If he gets fired before I wake
Lordy, I do hope there’s tape
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I guess what I find most disheartening in all of this is the smudgy- nosed obsequiousness of the Republican Party, despite the fact that many lawmakers find 45 an idiot buffoon, repugnant, or both.

Awhile back there was a theory going around that 45 was just a useful idiot for the Republicans, and that if he were able to successfully shill for the tax cut, the party would find a way to get rid of him before his term was up, preferring to deal with the more tractable Pence. I don’t see that happening. To me he is like a rodeo clown — he gets sent out to rile up the majority of citizens who dislike him and didn’t vote for him, to the delight of his rabid supporters up in the stands, while in the background the GOP is quietly, step by step, sharpening its knives and getting ready to dispatch our system in favor of a full- tilt, unapologetic authoritarian oligarchy.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I guess what I find most disheartening in all of this is the smudgy-nosed obsequiousness of the Republican Party, despite the fact that many lawmakers find 45 an idiot buffoon, repugnant, or both.

Charlie Pierce argues convincingly that Trump (or someone like him) is not an anomaly but rather the obvious end point of the trajectory the Republican party has been following for nearly four decades.

quote:
But my most serious reservation is that the dynamic being engaged by these wandering spirits tends to make the inevitable an anomaly. The prion disease has been at work for decades and Trump is just one of its most egregious symptoms. Earlier ones include the strangulation of the nomination of Merrick Garland, the nomination of Sarah Palin, the disinformation regarding Iraq, the U.S. Attorney scandal, the Great Penis Hunt of 1998, TravelGate, FileGate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, supply-side economics, and the ensemble encroaching on the institutions of government by organized plutocracy and organized theocracy. All of these things, large and small, led inexorably to the presidency* of someone like Donald Trump.
Given this analysis, the reason elected Republicans are so obsequious to Trump is that he represents the apotheosis of everything they've been working for.

[ 26. January 2018, 15:47: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There's a deadly plausibility in that article. The unholy alliance between the GOP and the evo right seems to have damaged both by pushing more moderate views to the margins.

[ 26. January 2018, 20:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Charlie Pierce argues convincingly that Trump (or someone like him) is not an anomaly but rather the obvious end point of the trajectory the Republican party has been following for nearly four decades.

I didn't see much of an argument in that article myself - he just lists a chronological series of events and doesn't really make much of an attempt to draw any connections.

OTOH I do think he is right - and he's right in going back before the current era (as usually the obvious comparisons stop with Bush and Palin). Rick Perlstein is good on the topic. Though his books are somewhat uneven, he does show how bizarre Reagan was, right until he got voted in and wasn't any longer.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
Spokesman for the Israeli government, Mr D Trump, has told the Palestinians that now I've undermined the piece of territory most precious to you, it's up to you to talk peace - or I'll take away your money.

Presumably he hopes to build a Trump hotel on either East Jerusalem or as part of a new Israeli "settlement" somewhere in the disputed "occupied" territory and wants Netahyahu's endorsement to do so. So bugger the Palestinians , who are poor and brown and therefore of no account.

I hope this hasn't set the peace process back years. I hope the Israeli police nab Netenyahu for corruption very soon, that they find a suitable mediator, perhaps someone who is identified by an organisation rather than a nation, and that the tensions are reduced. I am afraid though.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I hope the Israeli police nab Netenyahu for corruption very soon, that they find a suitable mediator, perhaps someone who is identified by an organisation rather than a nation, and that the tensions are reduced.

And, while you are at it, you want a pony. And a unicorn.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I hope this hasn't set the peace process back years.

[Killing me]

Do you suppose if they could go back, they would just get off at Oslo now?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a free click: practical tips you should keep in mind should you wish to have an affair with a porn star.

In spite of these scandals, the GOP insists that the president is a great role model. They actually admire his moral leadership.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
One tip should be "if you want to pay her hush money, and if you're rich, give her a heck of lot more money than T gave Stormy".

I'm still stunned he paid her so little. You'd think that even T could figure out she's more likely to stay hushed if he pays her a generous sum.

Alternatively, just don't have extramarital affairs.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I need brain bleach. Not because of Trump but because of the execrable fruit from the hybrid tree which is GOP/evo right. They have no shame.

Trump has no shame, but of course we knew that.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I hope the Israeli police nab Netenyahu for corruption very soon, that they find a suitable mediator, perhaps someone who is identified by an organisation rather than a nation, and that the tensions are reduced.

And, while you are at it, you want a pony. And a unicorn.
Sure. The Netenyahu corruption thing is fair dinkum though. He might not be charged (last I heard he was going in for his ninth session with the rozzers), but he might not win the next election either.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps the small sum the Evil Orange Emperor paid Ms. Daniels reflects the level of satisfaction he gave her?

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I hope the Israeli police nab Netenyahu for corruption very soon, that they find a suitable mediator, perhaps someone who is identified by an organisation rather than a nation, and that the tensions are reduced.

And, while you are at it, you want a pony. And a unicorn.
Sure. The Netenyahu corruption thing is fair dinkum though. He might not be charged (last I heard he was going in for his ninth session with the rozzers), but he might not win the next election either.
Corrupt or not Netanyahu is a moderate compared to other Likudniks and a librul compared to some of the ultras in the government coalition.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

The more important brouhaha of the day is the word that Lyin' Don wanted to fire Mueller last year, but was talked out of it. A quick summary of the importance of this, alas from the Post. Loose lips sink ships; it may be that all the lawyers will need is the self-incrimination that he pours out unprompted.

For your amusement, a friend on Twitter posts:
Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray Bob Mueller’s job he’ll keep
If he gets fired before I wake
Lordy, I do hope there’s tape

I'm working on the theory that Mueller will have had enough smarts to second-guess that plot right from the time he turned on the ignition. I suspect he holds the aces.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the POST, a roundup of evangelicals' unwavering support for Crooked Don. It is depressing to reflect upon the howls that would have been heard, if this had happened to Barack Obama.

And, also from the Post, is it a problem to be merely pro-birth? Does it not dilute the anti-abortion movement, to insist that babies have food or health care after they're born?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Billy Graham's grand daughter.

From which this quote is withering.

quote:
"I understand a lot of evangelicals supporting him because of his policies," she said. "I'd love to see a Christian leader come out and say that they support Trump for his policies, but that his behavior disgusts them, and he needs to clean up his act."
Wonder what Uncle Franklyn makes of that? Wonder what her granddad makes of Franklyn.

The evo right will rue the day they tied themselves to this man.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The unrepentant vileness of the current incumbent gives tacit permission for even more horrible people to crawl out of the woodwork. The bar is now really, really, low.

Less depressingly, someone on Twitter has offered a prize to the first journalist who asks Lyin' Don about American relations with Wakanda, and gets his reply on video. I have mislaid the link but will post it if I can refind it.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:


Less depressingly, someone on Twitter has offered a prize to the first journalist who asks Lyin' Don about American relations with Wakanda, and gets his reply on video.

Clever. That's the Kenyan province where the previous President was born, right?

Meanwhile, back on Earth, the dims are decrying an offer of amnesty to roughly thrice the DACA population as...wait for it...racist!

It's nearly February. Is this really their strategy?
[Killing me] [Roll Eyes]

Oh yeah, and McCabe's out. 2 months before his announced retirement. Interesting times...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Actually, Wakanda is fictional (Wikipedia).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
We can all go and see the new Black Panther movie and learn about it.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
“ Dims,” really? What’s next — “ cucks”?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
We'll have to see what Trump has to say at the State of the Uniom (sic) speech tomorrow.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Romanlion, I'm not sure of your religious views, but I wonder whether Trump's moral record has ever given you pause for thought?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
“ Dims,” really? What’s next — “ cucks”?

romanlion has been using 'dims' for ages. Also 'Barry' for Barack Obama, Illary for Hilary Clinton.

Expressing contempt in his posts seems to be a part of his libertarian outlook. I think he believes that liberalism is just another self-enclosing ideology, which may go some way towards explaining his more contemptuous posts.

I suppose he may find posting here amusing. Personally I think his pejorative labelling spoils the value of his posts. But that's up to him.

[ 30. January 2018, 09:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the Atlantic magazine, an in-depth (and free) analysis of the president's past year. What a sad, sorry man.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sounds as though 'The State Of The Union' could be summed up in just one word.

Shite.

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
An Australian news report suggested that the State of the Union would be irrelevant, because Trump would be back off-message on Twitter tomorrow.

Colbert's writing team came up with a brilliant metaphor for the attempted firing of Mueller. It starts just after the Susan Collins clip at about the 2:00 min mark.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
“ Dims,” really? What’s next — “ cucks”?

romanlion has been using 'dims' for ages. Also 'Barry' for Barack Obama, Illary for Hilary Clinton.

Expressing contempt in his posts seems to be a part of his libertarian outlook. I think he believes that liberalism is just another self-enclosing ideology, which may go some way towards explaining his more contemptuous posts.

I suppose he may find posting here amusing. Personally I think his pejorative labelling spoils the value of his posts. But that's up to him.

Something for lonely people to do when they're shit-faced.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
[QUOTE] [/romanlion has been using 'dims' for ages. Also 'Barry' for Barack Obama, Illary for Hilary Clinton. QUOTE]

I guess I haven’t paid any attention to his posts before.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
The SOTU address coverage should start in about 10 minutes.

The Washington Post has a page of info, and you can watch the speech there, too.

There's also supposed to be live fact-checking there. I don't think the link for *that* is working yet, though--just takes me back to the same page. (It's announced in the 12:36 pm update for today, on the page in my first paragraph.)


NOTE: I don't know if this will cost any clicks. I think maybe some of my security software blocks that, and I usually don't run into it.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
[QUOTE] [/romanlion has been using 'dims' for ages. Also 'Barry' for Barack Obama, Illary for Hilary Clinton. QUOTE]

I guess I haven’t paid any attention to his posts before.

[/qb//[]JULy 2005/huh? [
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Huh? Are you addressing me?

Anyway - I’m giving the SOTU a pass. Why ruin drinking by having that in the background?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
An argument that Trump is the Anti-Christ, deceiving the elect and destroying the faith. The weakness in the evangelical heart that he is exploiting is racism; people who worship the White Jesus are easy prey.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
He says he's the antiChrist, the best most stable genius antiChrist, got the biggest pitchfork, from the hottest, biggest, stink fingered shithole hell etc.

But he's really just an angry little boy who keeps pooping his pants, rolling into balls and throwing it around. If he had been in my boarding school he'd have been held down and made to eat it.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
If you're mates with Hillary on Facefacts, she just sent out a massive post on the sexual harassment issue in 2008. It's a great read, not only on how to deal with these allegations but on how to be a good employer. The contrast with the State of the Union Clapfest, veering between bullying bluster and hackneyed platitudes, was stark.

I was wondering what was so offensive to me about Trump's praise for people in the audience, whereas those of other Presidents don't raise the same hackles. I think a fairly large part of it is that I just hate Trump, but I don't think that's all of it. Trump praises people in very standard-form ways. The actual words he uses could come off a Hallmark card. He doesn't convey a sense that he has met with the individuals, or is engaged with their story. He reads out the information and then gives his short and uniform catchphrase for the occasion.

The State of the Union address is broadcast live in Australia on free-to-air TV. The post-speech analysis was unfortunately delayed by a leak of classified Cabinet documents covering four Australian Governments, revealed today to have been found in some filing cabinets sold by a secondhand store.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
[/qb//[]JULy 2005/huh? [

Deliberately posting bad code and/or gibberish is a Commandment 1 offence. Don't engage in it.

/hosting
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
LutheranChik

Your 'Huh?' is understandable. romanlion seems to have noted that you have been a member since July 2005. That gives you lots of opportunities to have seen his posts.

He also appears to be mocking your coding errors from the post where you quoted me. His post also makes it look as though you made those comments, instead of the obvious truth that you were quoting me.

I won't say any more, obviously, since the Hostly ruling does not need to be made twice. In any case, as a participant in this thread, I should not rule. But I think I can give you a translation of what appears to be going on.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host.

[ 31. January 2018, 06:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Stormy Daniels:

Late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel had her as a guest tonight. It started out ok. She interviews pretty well, and seems pretty smart. Jimmy tried to tease and prod her into talking about Trump. She dodged most of it. After a break, JK tried harder and much more bluntly. As in trying to get her to specify size (let the reader understand [Eek!] ) by way of sample carrots. [Roll Eyes] She would only play along so far.

(I probably shouldn't say this, but she's built like Dolly Parton used to be. DP had back problems from that, and had to have reduction surgery. Stormy most likely has or will have back problems.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
An effective, well crafted, SOTU speech. Obviously partisan, setting out the stall for the mid term elections. And he stuck to the script.

Better on domestic policy than foreign affairs.

The 'bipartisan' appeals were pretty disingenuous. But quite cleverly done.

It will be interesting to see the impact on his approval ratings. I should think they will improve.

Joe Kennedy's response on behalf of the Democrats was effective, too, and a direct appeal to the young and the marginalised.

The mid term election campaigns are up and running.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Did T use teleprompters? I didn't see any.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I saw them. He couldn't have delivered that without them.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Barnabas62 said (in polite and measured tones):
quote:
An effective, well crafted, SOTU speech. Obviously partisan, setting out the stall for the mid term elections. And he stuck to the script.

Better on domestic policy than foreign affairs.

The 'bipartisan' appeals were pretty disingenuous. But quite cleverly done.

It will be interesting to see the impact on his approval ratings. I should think they will improve.

Joe Kennedy's response on behalf of the Democrats was effective, too, and a direct appeal to the young and the marginalised.

The mid term election campaigns are up and running.

May I be forgiven for wondering whether Barnabas is being ever-so-slightly ironic?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Barnabas--

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I saw them. He couldn't have delivered that without them.

Thanks. I figured that, too. If no teleprompters, options would've been some kind of medication (which I think caused the differences in Dubya); or someone speaking the speech into something that broadcasts to an ear piece, and T repeating it verbatim.

Or "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers", or he joined the Borg, or...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
GK, I think you are being wildly overoptimistic (if that's the right word) about Trump's alleged mental health deficiencies.

Yes, the Democrat echo-chamber is awash with people pointing to dementia-type symptoms, Trump's alleged inability to read, and so on. The prospect of Trump being able to pass off repeating something spoken into an earpiece word for word (have you ever tried actually doing that?) for a major speech illustrates the levels of fantasy being engaged in here to try and nurture that delusion.

My view, informed by Fire and Fury, is still that Trump's behaviour is down to extreme narcissism and animal cunning. It's not that he can't read; it's just that he won't, unless he judges it to be critically in his interest - as here. If it isn't, as with normal social graces, he simply won't bother.

What differentiates him from most other politicans is not diminished mental abilities but a chronic disinclination to keep up appearances for appearance's sake.

Stop dreaming about invoking the 25th amendment.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Bishop's Finger

There is always a certain irony when commenting on Trump speeches, because of his inconsistencies. It was a showman doing a pretty effective selling job. He may tweet it off the headlines with some other nonsense. But credit where credit is due. It was an effective speech making good use of the invited guests, some of whose stories were profoundly moving.

It was also a divisive speech so far as bipartisan agreement goes. But I doubt whether either he or the GOP are bothered about that. They just want to wrong-foot the Democrats.

I'm sure also that it didn't always pass the truth test. Those who observed that the trip around the world spotted the lack of reference to Russia as a serious omission, but given the current state of affairs with Mueller, that was hardly a surprise.

'Trump first' obviously involves him in shoring up his own support base. In 2018 he also has to give the GOP something to unite behind. In those terms it was an effective speech.

[ 31. January 2018, 12:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, as I said, a concise and fair summary in polite and measured tones, so thank you for that.

Points all duly noted, of course, but one can only hope, for the sake of the world at large, that things improve from here on in... [Ultra confused]

IJ
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Didn't watch, but peeked at the speech when someone be told me he was clapping for himself throughout. Reminded me of my niece when she was just learning to talk. She'd say a word, we'd clap, and she would clap too.

ETA: didn't avoid the speech just because of Trump. I didn't want to have to stare at the face of that tool, Mike Pence, for an hour.

sabine

[ 31. January 2018, 14:02: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I'm afraid I've eschewed looking at the BBC News page today, simply to avoid having to see Orange McGobshite grinning all over his horrible visage, as though he'd done something wonderful.

If (and I don't advise this) you look into his eyes, there's nothing behind them..... [Paranoid]

How long, O Lord, how long....??

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Remember that the SOTU (and all major speeches) are not written by the president. He has a team to pen them, and all he has to do is read them aloud from the teleprompter that he so loudly denigrated his betters for using. The address had better sound cogent and intelligent -- that's what the speechwriters are paid to deliver. To see the real pussygrabber's colors you have to look at his unfiltered tweets, which surely (either today or tomorrow at the latest) will blatantly undercut all the clement things that were said today.


A free link, Frank Schaeffer of all people denounces Lyin' Don and his supporters.

From the POST, a roundup of all the untruths in the speech.

[ 31. January 2018, 15:12: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Remember that the SOTU (and all major speeches) are not written by the president. He has a team to pen them, and all he has to do is read them aloud from the teleprompter that he so loudly denigrated his betters for using. The address had better sound cogent and intelligent -- that's what the speechwriters are paid to deliver.

Sometimes he goes off script. For instance, this bit:

quote:
Last month, I also took an action endorsed unanimously by the Senate just months before: I recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Shortly afterwards, dozens of countries voted in the United Nations General Assembly against America's sovereign right to make this recognition. In 2016, American taxpayers generously sent those same countries more than $20 billion in aid.

That is why, tonight, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to help ensure American foreign assistance dollars always serve American interests and only go to friends of America, not enemies of America.

The bit I've put in bold there was not in the as-written transcript of the speech. Just so you know, Donald Trump considers most countries of the world (and most members of NATO) to be "enemies of America".
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Which, I submit, is an indication of conscious trolling, not demential bafflegab (which seems to be the latest Ship word).
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Congressman Luis Gutiérrez makes a fairly obvious, though still funny, dig at Trump's SOTU address.

quote:
Even though I disagreed with almost everything he said, for Trump, the speech was clear and well-delivered. Whoever translated it for him from Russian did a good job.


[ 31. January 2018, 16:00: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O if only some kindly Gremlin had suddenly transposed the teleprompter text into the Cyrillic alphabet!

[Devil]

Point taken, though, that the Tangerine Lord Of Tweets (or should that be Twits?) had it all written for him by reasonably articulate people.

IJ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
For my part, I've no doubt of that. My point is that speechwriting ability, or lack of it, is no reliable indicator of Trump's mental alertness in any case. Trump not writing his own speeches is neither exceptional nor indicative of anything much.

Moreover, despite many wild hopes to the contrary, the exercise proves (again) that Trump is functionally literate enough to read a teleprompter and do so plausibly.

[I can write posts. I just edit them relentlessly]

[ 31. January 2018, 16:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
This is the sad state we live in. The standard has sunk so low that when the monkey doesn't fling its own shit, we praise it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You mean when he delivers a speech that he didn't write? That's hardly unusual, even if it is a bit of a depressing thought.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Congressman Luis Gutiérrez makes a fairly obvious, though still funny, dig at Trump's SOTU address.

quote:
Even though I disagreed with almost everything he said, for Trump, the speech was clear and well-delivered. Whoever translated it for him from Russian did a good job.

[Killing me] Ho yes! That's very funny!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You mean when he delivers a speech that he didn't write? That's hardly unusual, even if it is a bit of a depressing thought.

Because he delivered a speech that was full of lies, partial truths, was misleading as fuck and doesn't represent the good of most Americans and he gets praise because it was spoken more politely than typical. And that whilst looking suspiciously reminiscent of Mussolini.
Il Douchey
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I personally am not praising him. I'm just saying it belies the myth that he's going anywhere anytime soon on the basis of being too far gone to read a speech, or functionally illiterate. Know your enemy.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
My post was not a response directly to anyone, but to all referring his speech was anything more than the same bullshit he has always been about.
The monkey politely handed everyone the same shit he previously threw and will throw again.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I personally am not praising him. I'm just saying it belies the myth that he's going anywhere anytime soon on the basis of being too far gone to read a speech, or functionally illiterate. Know your enemy.

A interesting side note about Trump's reading ability:

quote:
Generally, these texts are printed on official stationery and they are presented essentially as a document in conventional prose. Instead, for reasons known only to god, what we [reporters] were handed were copies of the speech as the president* would read it from the podium. Words and phrases he was supposed to emphasize were written in all caps, not unlike what you’d see in the angry part of a Tweet. For example:

quote:
“As I promised the American People from this podium 11 months ago, we enacted the BIGGEST TAX CUTS AND REFORMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.”
This curious happenstance enabled us to watch in real time as the president* utterly botched the stagecraft of his address. He blew through most of the capitalized points of emphasis, only occasionally leaning into them the way he was supposed to. So, even on its most basic level, the speech was completely unbalanced in what it chose to emphasize.
So while the speech verified Trump's ability to read words aloud at more-or-less speaking speed, he is unable (or perhaps simply unwilling) to coordinate his speech with stage directions. This is, admittedly, a different (though related) skill set than basic literacy, but it's not exactly rocket science either.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fascinating insight. I still think the speech worked well for both his core base and the GOP.

But the research also gives some further information in support of the loose cannon thesis.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Perhaps it is a manifestation of a problem all staffers agree that he has: he is highly unwilling to take direction. Even so far as the emphasis in a speech (which he has approved in advance and surely agrees should be delivered as effectively as possible) he cannot comply with. Even when it's clearly in his own interest, he cannot obey.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
CBS poll

The breakdown is interesting. The speech did nothing about the now chronic polarisation in the US, but it has played very well with Republicans.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
CBS poll

The breakdown is interesting. The speech did nothing about the now chronic polarisation in the US, but it has played very well with Republicans.

It's also interesting that the numbers are so different from CNN's instant poll, which found Trump's had the lowest approval of any State of the Union Address going back to 1998. (1998 was when CNN started doing this poll.)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
while the speech verified Trump's ability to read words aloud at more-or-less speaking speed, he is unable (or perhaps simply unwilling) to coordinate his speech with stage directions.

My money is still very much on unwilling; although given time I think this can morph into unable.

To my mind he decided it was expedient on this occasion to stick (more or less) to the script, but I can well imagine him still wanting to have his way with it and not follow pointers.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Croesos

If you look at the full poll results for CNN and add very positive and somewhat positive, the results aren't a lot different.

In 2014 Obama scored 44% very positive, 32% somewhat positive. In 2007 Bush scored 41% very positive, 37% somewhat positive. Trump's combo of very positive plus somewhat positive is 70%. It is the lowest combo, but not by much.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Meanwhile, even though both houses practically voted unanimously to sanction Russia for interfering with the election, Trump says he would impose those sanctions. Why? Because the Russian military industry is suffering in foreign sales.

I wonder what would have happened if Obama refused to impose such sanctions?

Or what would happen if the British PM refused to impose similar sanctions if they have been voted on in Parliment?

And the Republicans are giving him a pass???

In other news, over 30 Republican congresspeople have now announced their retirement this year.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Has Devin Nunes lost his mind?

Are there no limits to the duplicitous steps this GOP water boy for the White House will take?

This undermining of Mueller shows all too clearly the level of fear of censure by the Special Prosecutor.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It might well work though.

If the whole investigation can be discredited as partisan, its relevance will disappear amidst a cacophony of across-the-aisle shouting.

Trump was so right that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care. They can drown the signal with noise.

[ 01. February 2018, 08:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
So due legal and political processes are simply cast aside to protect a sitting President from an investigation? Separation of powers is being damaged by this.

Doesn't anyone in the GOP care any more about this vital aspect of the US Constitution? I thought the majority were strict constitutionalists. But only when it suits their book, apparently.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I don't think the GOP care about it at all as long as they can get their legislation pushed through, and at the rate they are going(*), they will be in power for a long time. They fight dirty.

*Gerrymandering, SCOTUS appointments, media manipulation, etc.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Has Devin Nunes lost his mind?

Are there no limits to the duplicitous steps this GOP water boy for the White House will take?


If, as it now appears is the case, the FBI used debunked, unverified opo-research to obtain a FISA warrant to run surveillance on the Trump campaign, Americans should know it.

That is more horrifying than any potential damage to the Obama DOJ, personal objections to Trump completely aside.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Do you really believe that is a correct, balanced, view of what is going on here? The FBI have to honour FISA. The DOJ and the FIS court, operating in accordance with National Security, vet, present, consider approval. The process has checks. It is not an FBI rubber stamp.

It is now pretty clear that the Nunes staff were in consultation with the White House over the Nunes memo in advance of the decision to send a copy. It is also clear that the Democratic desire to present a memo was blocked by those who agreed to send the Nunes memo.

I appreciate this is a view from across the pond. I may be missing stuff. IMO there are things to be horrified about here. But your eyes are on the wrong target. The fix is in, for sure, but the White House is doing the fixing with the connivance of water boy Nunes and GOP members of the House Intel Committee. That's the way it looks here.

F.I.S.A.

The Nunes memo explained.

[ 01. February 2018, 11:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It's particularly risible because it was Comey and the FBI whose judicious release of material essentially trashed Hillary Clinton's campaign. Even the pussygrabber thanked the FBI for their contribution to his election. Only now, when it's him in the cross hairs, are they discovered to be partisan and wicked. The only definition of good for this crew is 'good for me.' There are no other moral standards. There is the further expectation by Crooked Don that the justice department are his guys -- their job is to protect and foster him. The notion of 'justice' as an abstract value is alien to him.

This is from the POST, a summary of the state of play as of this morning. Don't click if you don't want to; tomorrow morning, new plan.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
If, as it now appears is the case, the FBI used debunked, unverified opo-research to obtain a FISA warrant to run surveillance on the Trump campaign, Americans should know it.

That is more horrifying than any potential damage to the Obama DOJ, personal objections to Trump completely aside.

It's even more horrifying when you really stop to think about it. Carter Page has apparently been under FISA warrant as early as 2013, two years before Donald Trump announced his candidacy, or hired Carter Page, or had anyone doing "opo-research" on him or his aides. The only thing we can conclude is that the FBI has access to time travel technology and was able to send this "opo-research" to itself from the future as a warning, to prevent the horrors to come. Just think about how bad the dystopian hellscape barreling towards us must be for the FBI to take this drastic step, given that they didn't do so for 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or any of the mass shootings the U.S. seems perennially subject to. I'm picturing something like the Skynet apocalypse crossed with Hieronymous Bosch.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
And still the Orange Lord of Modern Mordor grins, and grins, and grins.....whilst the Orcs undermine the foundations of his pale black Tower.

[Devil]

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Well, it's either a desperate warning out of time from a dystopian future where the living envy the dead, or the FBI has other sources than the Steele dossier. One of those is crazy notion. Which one of those is the crazy notion depends on whether your chief window on the world is Fox News.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
But, if the FBI has somehow, amidst the horrors to come, tried to warn us of them, then surely those horrors are indeed still to come?

[Paranoid]

I guess I might be missing something here, though.

What time-scale are we contemplating? The medics say I have 5+ years, so with any luck, I'll be Promoted to Glory before the worst happens...

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
But, if the FBI has somehow, amidst the horrors to come, tried to warn us of them, then surely those horrors are indeed still to come?

[Paranoid]

I guess I might be missing something here, though.

What time-scale are we contemplating? The medics say I have 5+ years, so with any luck, I'll be Promoted to Glory before the worst happens...

IJ

If, as romanlion suggested, the target date for the warning was sometime in 2013 there's every possibility that the window for meaningful action has already closed. If that's the case I can only guess that the warning has failed and Carter Page and/or Donald Trump has done whatever it was that inevitably led to disaster sometime in the past five years.

Or maybe it's one of those self-fulfilling prophecies, where the disaster only happens because the warning from the future was sent. After all, the current U.S. administration seems to be getting all ruffled about this so maybe the actions taken by the FBI in response to the warning are what goad the relevant actors into precipitating the apocalypse.

[ 01. February 2018, 14:45: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Right.

My head hurts, now, so I think I'll have a lie-down.

If the Apocalypse occurs meanwhile, I'll worry about it then.

If I live.

IJ
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Is anyone surprised that the PG is now (falsely) claiming that his State of the Union speech was the most-watched ever?

[ 01. February 2018, 15:04: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Not surprised in the least.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He's always the most watched, with the bigliest crowds. It is the only way to calculate value.

A convenient and free guide to the scheme to discredit Mueller and the FBI. This was compiled by ethics watchdogs.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, he certainly seems to be attracting the bigliest number of opprobrious epithets....

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Croesos

Well done re Carter Page. But I'm not sure that inconvenient facts bother Trump, or his supporters, or (misery of miseries) the GOP members of the House Intel Committee.

You're quite right about Fox News. A free enterprise propaganda machine. Goebbels types no longer necessary. Money and a lust for power will do.

Seriously, this departure from truth is now getting serious.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Seriously, this departure from truth is now getting serious.

What do you mean "now"? I think we passed "getting serious" with yellowcake, smoking guns that are mushroom clouds, and a whole bunch of dead Iraqis. From my perspective the reason the current American administration is so shameless is because past American administrations have shown that they'll never be held accountable for their lies.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fair point. It just seems more blatant.

But you are right to point back to Iraq. And maybe before that, to the legalisation of renditions and detentions as part of the war on terror.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is either exceptionally depressing, or a spectacular example of why nobody named Trump should try and meddle with theology. Is Eric actually claiming that his father is God? This is a free click.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is either exceptionally depressing, or a spectacular example of why nobody named Trump should try and meddle with theology. Is Eric actually claiming that his father is God? This is a free click.

Maybe the Democrats should have 'taken a knee'.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
It is next to impossible to know how many religions there are in the United States, but it is safe to say not all of them are monotheistic much less Christian.

Regards the number of people who watched SOTUS. 45.6 mil. The number who watched Obama's first SOTUS 48 mil. The number watched George W Bush's first SOTUS 68 mil. The highest recorded. Looks like the trend is downward.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is either exceptionally depressing, or a spectacular example of why nobody named Trump should try and meddle with theology. Is Eric actually claiming that his father is God? This is a free click.

ISTM he's saying that the darn Democrats didn't stand at the mention of God, Mom, and apple pie. He may have his dad mixed up in that tangle, but I don't think he's intentionally saying his dad is God.

YMMV.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is either exceptionally depressing, or a spectacular example of why nobody named Trump should try and meddle with theology. Is Eric actually claiming that his father is God? This is a free click.

Compulsory applause: takes me back to dear old Leonid Brezhnev.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sounds as if Eric's even more of a fruitcake than his Pa.

BTW, is it just me, or do others read 'SOTU' as 'STFU'? Wishful thinking, maybe.

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Frost and Nixon is on tonight, and Mrs T. is watching. It made me look forward to the day when Trump says, "But as I leave you I want you to know just think how much you'll be missing. You won't have Trump to kick around anymore."
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Frost and Nixon is on tonight, and Mrs T. is watching. It made me look forward to the day when Trump says, "But as I leave you I want you to know just think how much you'll be missing. You won't have Trump to kick around anymore."

You might want to be careful what historical repetitions you wish for here. Nixon made that speech in 1962.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
And I'll take this opportunity to observe that Frank Langella as Nixon is probably a case of an actor making a rather awkward transition from stage to screen in the same role.

He's got the mannerisms down perfectly, but he really doesn't look the part at all. I assume these things weren't a big problem in the stage show, where the audience isn't paying close attention to how the actors look. But it was lethal on the silver screen.

(Though I did read one critic praise Langella for his "Brezhnevesque Nixon", so maybe that was the point? Not sure why you'd do that, though.)
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Breaking news from the BBC.

Does this mean that the Lord of Lies is about to shoot himself in the foot, or will it be yet more evidence of decisive leadership by a stable genius?

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Nunes will stand or fall by the accuracy or otherwise of the memo.

His behaviour is clearly partisan. But he has the votes in the House Intel Committee.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nunes will stand or fall by the accuracy or otherwise of the memo.

Link (be patient, lots of other people going there too).
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
For those who are interested, here's "the memo", courtesy of the Washington Post.

From my perspective it looks like the same kind of "OMG! Who would ever suspect sweet, innocent Carter Page of being a Russian asset?" narrative from the fever swamps discussed here yesterday.

In other news, Happy Groundhog Day!
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned here yet, but Rachel Maddow shared with her viewers the Reuters news reports of major Russian intelligence officials being invited to the White House in the past few months — even the head of Russia’s equivalent of the CIA. And Reuters only knows this because they monitor Russian news outlets which broadcast this info — bragged about it, actually — to Russians. The White House had a news blackout of these visits/ meetings — only the Russian press was allowed in.

MAGA? More like MRGA.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It's certainly hard not to get the impression the Russians have Trump exactly where they want him, and Trump can assuredly be relied upon to put hope of self-preservation ahead of anything like setting damaging precedents for the confidentiality of intelligence briefings, or indeed anything much else.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I've read the memo. Pretty sloppy bit of work with some weasely language thrown in.

Nunes can't be that bright, otherwise he would never have allowed himself to get inveigled into this. Apparently his nickname is 'Inspector Clouseau'.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I've read it too.

I think it does little except superficially cast doubt on the impartiality of the Mueller investigation. Apparently most of its key points can be refuted, but that doesn't matter one way or the other. It barely pretends to tell the truth. It's not desiged to hold up in a court of law, it's designed to instil doubt about the investigation in the court of public opinion, especially those who will never read the memo but only get summaries of its alleged contents from Fox News and the like.

The one glimmer of hope is that it smacks of desperation.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Apparently some of Nunes’ colleagues privately consider him a laughably not- too- bright suckup — but of course that never translates into their criticizing him on the job.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
At any rate, it represents a new low in 'alternative facts'.

One of things it omits was the obligation to present information about significant finding from the previous 90 days wiretaps. Presumably those findings are classified? But I imagine they would be part of the case for renewal.

If there was nothing there, presumably that would have gone in the Nunes memo. The dog that didn't bark in the night?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've read it too.

I think it does little except superficially cast doubt on the impartiality of the Mueller investigation.

Actually Nunes' memo says nothing at all about the Mueller investigation. This all relates to the FBI's counter-intelligence wing. I guess we're supposed to conclude that the FBI and the DOJ are hotbeds of liberal, anti-Trump bias so therefore anyone selected by (Trump-appointed) Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to investigate connections between the Trump campaign and Russia must be some kind of hatchet man.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
The fact that they dropped it on Friday is possibly telling. Friday is usually when you drop news that you want people to miss as they get ready for the weekend.

Maybe there was something to the scheduling of the drop, but the sense I get is that the memo as an idea was far more powerful than the memo in fact.

Trump will no doubt blame today's stock market dip on the revelations. If he ever does try to fire Mueller (yes, I've said it's happening many times before and it still hasn't,) he'll probably point to all the times that breaking news in the investigation corresponded with a market dip as his justification. You can hear it now- there was no collusion, this is all just sour grapes and fake news that is doing harm to the economy and has to stop.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've read it too.

I think it does little except superficially cast doubt on the impartiality of the Mueller investigation.

Actually Nunes' memo says nothing at all about the Mueller investigation. This all relates to the FBI's counter-intelligence wing. I guess we're supposed to conclude that the FBI and the DOJ are hotbeds of liberal, anti-Trump bias so therefore anyone selected by (Trump-appointed) Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to investigate connections between the Trump campaign and Russia must be some kind of hatchet man.
That's more or less what I meant. I think the Mueller investigation is the target even if it's not the subject of the memo.

I can see a "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument being attempted too.

[ 02. February 2018, 20:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Frost and Nixon is on tonight, and Mrs T. is watching. It made me look forward to the day when Trump says, "But as I leave you I want you to know just think how much you'll be missing. You won't have Trump to kick around anymore."

You might want to be careful what historical repetitions you wish for here. Nixon made that speech in 1962.
Lord save us!
[Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:


I can see a "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument being attempted too.

Fox News is revving up.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
We had Franklin Graham on the BBC Sunday programme this morning, musing how God had influenced the voting to get Trump in. Among other things. Sunday programme
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
God used Russian interference to ensure that Trump was elected? God is continuing to use Russian interference to turn US Government and constitution into a pigs breakfast? God has so arranged things to provide the US with an administration whose abiding characterisc, exemplified by its leader, is that it lies?

A nice Scottish insult springs to mind."

"Awaa an' bile yur heed!".

(Go away and boil your head!)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
IIRC, there was a line in the SOTU to the effect of "if we're good, God will bless and protect us".

Shades of Pat Robertson. [Frown]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Franklin Graham is an utter gobshite, and a shame and reproach to his poor Dad, who must be wondering what kind of monster he has had the misfortune to sire.

IJ
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:


I can see a "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument being attempted too.

Fox News is revving up.
[Killing me] [Killing me]

I find it strangely reassuring that Fox covers it like this; the desperate attacks on the investigation tell you how much is really there. Compare and contrast with the Starr investigation. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

But the worrying part is this; I don't think many of them really think this will kill the investigation. What they're going for is the discrediting of truth. [Mad]

And we shall see if the US constitution is strong enough to survive Trump and Trumpism...

We are fighting the same war in the UK, just different battles:
quote:
From the FT
"Ministers now have a choice. They can opt for an honest Brexit in which they argue in public that people should pay an economic price for their policies. Or they can opt for a dishonest Brexit, pretending they have a secret plan for economic nirvana and trashing their own internal economic evidence. Ministers’ initial reaction in disowning the analysis suggests deception is the government’s central Brexit strategy."

Truth matters.

AFZ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Truth matters.

AFZ

Sums it up. Both sides of the pond.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is the sin against the Holy Spirit that Jesus talks about. You can't debate or discuss stuff, if you can't fix upon truth. There's no common ground for discourse. Bad money drives out good.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
My phrase "the abiding characteristic of this administration is that it lies', is not original. It originated with Seymour Hersh. Veteran investigatory journalist who is probably best known for exposing the My Lai massacre. The administration he was referring to was the Nixon administration.

When it comes to lying, the Nixon administration cannot hold a candle to this one.

[ 04. February 2018, 17:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
My sister gave the the box set of "Rev" for my birthday, and I have just realised that "Darren" who turned up with his followers in series 1 had something in common with Franklin Graham.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The liar in chief
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is the sin against the Holy Spirit that Jesus talks about. You can't debate or discuss stuff, if you can't fix upon truth. There's no common ground for discourse. Bad money drives out good.

Here is a long and scary article on just what has happened in the last couple of weeks about that memo. As someone who's been trying to follow events and got very confused, its basic premise makes sense to me (even if I don't understand social media well), as does its conclusion:
quote:
So what are the lessons of #releasethememo? Regardless of how much of the campaign was American and how much was Russian, it’s clear there was a massive effort to game social media and put the Nunes memo squarely on the national agenda—and it worked to an astonishing degree. The bottom line is that the goals of the two overlapped, so the origin—human, machine or otherwise—doesn’t actually matter. What matters is that someone is trying to manipulate us, tech companies are proving hopelessly unable or unwilling to police the bad actors manipulating their platforms, and politicians are either clueless about what to do about computational propaganda or—in the case of #releasethememo—are using it to achieve their goals.

 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Let this brighten your day: internet jokes about the memo. Should be a free click!

More seriously (from the POST), the more respectable Republicans are backing away from Nunes.

A former CIA director even accuses him of abuse of power. Over on the Post opinion page you can find a piece from a former fellow congressman, recalling his reputation as a dyed-in-the-wool political hack.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Let this brighten your day: internet jokes about the memo.

Alas, into what watered-down ink the pen of sarcasm has dipped! Those jokes are so lame that they can park in a handicapped space even without a wheelchair license plate.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Let this brighten your day: internet jokes about the memo. Should be a free click!

Very droll. But thinking this is something simply to be laughed at is dangerous.

To my mind the damage the memo has done is first and foremost the precedent it sets about declassifying intelligence community information, and the damage that does to the relationship of trust required to share intelligence within government.

Moreover, the article I linked to makes the case that the decision to publish the memo was made under pressure from orchestrated agitprop funnelled via social media. Rather than reporting the news, the actual media seem to be in the process of becoming its creators. The president's thinking and decisions can apparently be swayed by whatever he's just seen on Fox and Friends.

The damage this causes is irrespective of the contents of the memo, and the really scary thing is the delivery method - pressure from agitprop. People who are dismissing it (with an almost audible sigh of relief) as a nothingburger are missing the point.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Disturbing stuff, Eutychus.

The doleful conclusion, given the first Amendment, is that the Democrats will have to develop their own orchestrated agitprop machinery, or lose the social media battleground. There is absolutely zero chance of bi-partisan legislation to shut these processes down.

Either way, the Russians win. The US Democracy becomes a pig's breakfast. Mutual wallowing in social media mud.

O Brave New World .....
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It all depends how perennial the adage about fooling all the people all the time is.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Trouble is, you just have to fool enough.

But the fickleness of social media and the relentless search for novelty suggests to me that the troubles in the Trump marriage will go viral pretty soon. That topic is tinder dry. Wouldn't take much to 'light the blue touchpaper'.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Perhaps. But that does a disservice in another way, with the Trump persona overshadowing actual developments in policy. He is partly to blame for this mess, but he also serves as a useful distraction for those who (unlike him) have a long-term political agenda at work.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trouble is, you just have to fool enough.

But the fickleness of social media and the relentless search for novelty suggests to me that the troubles in the Trump marriage will go viral pretty soon. That topic is tinder dry. Wouldn't take much to 'light the blue touchpaper'.

And?

What difference would that make?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Hard to predict, Boogie. It would depend how much it played into 'me too'.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I don't think anyone (esp. social media) should pressure Melania about the marriage. She seems unhappy much of the time. If she *did* want to leave, some draconian pre-nup might come into play. And T would probably raise legal hell. I don't know if Melania even has her own money. And T probably would see that she didn't get any access to Barron, their son--and she loves that kid.

As to #metoo: given Melania's past life as a model, which can be dangerous that way, she probably qualifies. And then there's what T did to his first wife...

[Votive]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't think anyone (esp. social media) should pressure Melania about the marriage.

Agree entirely. But the social media have, shall we say to be kind, rather less concern about such decencies than we might hope.

Less kindly, if the story is repeatable enough, you just get global dog-pile. Anyway I didn't want to start even a mini-one here; just musing about the social media in response to Eutychus.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And in other news ....

...an idiot tweet.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The president's thinking and decisions can apparently be swayed by whatever he's just seen on Fox and Friends.

Latest evidence:
quote:
President Trump's tweet came after ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage appeared on Fox And Friends, one of the president's favourite shows, talking about the weekend march.
(x-post)

[ 05. February 2018, 13:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
We will never hear word one from Melania. Any more than we have heard a single word from Ivana, Marla, Stormy, etc. They're all being paid handsomely to keep their mouths shut, and if they blab the flow of dollars will stop. If you had a choice between $130K and letting your mouth run, you'd be silent too. What does it profit a girl, to appear on Morning Edition, if she loses her offshore savings account?

The children (Eric, Ivanka, etc.) will also never talk. Not only would the flow of money stop, and the severance from all the prestigious fun of White House offices and Trump brand names; they have legal liability in the way that the wives don't. Jared particularly has a wholesome fear of prison -- his father did 18 months in an Alabama prison for white-collar crimes.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And in other news ....

...an idiot tweet.

But once again, this will play well with his base, who will never hear the objections.

And I still shudder even more at the ease with which one can apparently influence Trump's thinking simply by getting people to say things on Fox and Friends (see here).
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I suspect that on any given topic, we might hear from the Trump children, as they are not smart enough to keep their mouths closed.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We will never hear word one from Melania.

More likely to be right than wrong, Brenda.

BUT

There is a famous saying by the Duke of Wellington which touches on people under pressure. And Melania is very obviously under pressure.

quote:
It is inadvisable to drive anyone beyond a certain point
.

Neither you nor I know what the point may be for her. Sometimes money ceases to be a sufficient solace.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
We had Franklin Graham on the BBC Sunday programme this morning, musing how God had influenced the voting to get Trump in. Among other things. Sunday programme

I heard a liberal bishop say something similar on Saturday - but he meant that it would make ordinary people sit up and think - and value democracy enough to rebel.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
FAITH AND RESISTANCE IN THE AGE OF TRUMP - Miguel A. De La Torre, offers some theologians' reactions to the Trump phenomenon.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We will never hear word one from Melania.

More likely to be right than wrong, Brenda.

BUT

There is a famous saying by the Duke of Wellington which touches on people under pressure. And Melania is very obviously under pressure.

quote:
It is inadvisable to drive anyone beyond a certain point
.

Neither you nor I know what the point may be for her. Sometimes money ceases to be a sufficient solace.

There is the further lever of little Barron. I am certain that the prenup allows Crooked Don all the rights to the child, and Melania will never see him again. Nor could she ever afford to sue him for any adjustment in her rights. No, her lip is permanently zipped, until perhaps such time as Lyin' Don shuffles off this mortal coil. Then, perhaps, the money will no longer suffice. The alluring returns on a tell-all memoir might then shine brighter.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is the further lever of little Barron. I am certain that the prenup allows Crooked Don all the rights to the child, and Melania will never see him again.

Everything I know about family law comes from a two-hour bar prep class I sat in, but I would have to think that such a clause in a prenup would be 100% unenforceable.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
We had Franklin Graham on the BBC Sunday programme this morning, musing how God had influenced the voting to get Trump in. Among other things. Sunday programme

I heard a liberal bishop say something similar on Saturday - but he meant that it would make ordinary people sit up and think - and value democracy enough to rebel.
Yeah, every time some latter-day Calvinist opines that "God is in control" and therefore put Trump in office I wonder which (of a number of possibilities) thing it was we did that God so pissed off at us to send this neo-Nebuchadnezzar upon us?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This link should work, and be a free click: an update of the Beatitudes under the current regime.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Not sure it's worse than Roman occupation of Judea in the 1st century. Pax Romana was a way of screwing the occupied for taxes and imposing pretty brutal oppression of folks who rebelled and complained.

Hard though it is to remember, Michelle Obama was right. "When they aim low, we aim high". Truth is that Trump is even lower than we feared.

My late dad taught me a phrase for this kind of lowness.

"He's so low, he could crawl under a snake's belly with a top hat on".

It might not be original to him, but it sure is memorable.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Brenda quipped:

quote:
What does it profit a girl, to appear on Morning Edition, if she loses her offshore savings account?
Beautiful.

People are thinking about jumping off the Sydney Harbor Bridge this morning as our markets tank for the second day, following the Dow. Wasn't that the same Dow this President pointed to as further evidence of his economic prowess?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Then this should amuse:
the president tells you what to do when the stock market drops.

Although Snopes reports that it was a fake tweet and the creator is horrified. Have a look at his comments: "Siri, can I be arrested for a fake tweet"

[ 05. February 2018, 22:51: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Sorry, I quoted myself instead of editing and blew the window.

The musings above about the impact of the Fox network and social media are a little too doom and gloom for mine. I don't think the fundamentals of politics has changed. I think we are put off by the visceral wrong of having a person like Donald Trump in office. Its offensive. It hurts. I feel angry and upset about it allot. He was still a Republican elected after a two-term democratic President, and one barely elected at that.

I think the real and only significant reason for Trump being in the White House is the fact that he was the endorsed Republican candidate for the job. THAT was where the huge mistake was made. Most Americans would not have voted for him without endorsement from the Republican party.

I read in The Guardian that a ridgie-didge Nazi is looking like getting the endorsement of the Republican party in an unwinnable house seat in Illinois because no-one else is standing. Can't they decide to endorse nobody? How does this guy represent the values of the GOP (no sarcasm please)?

Forget what I was saying... too horrified to go on.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To my mind the damage the memo has done is first and foremost the precedent it sets about declassifying intelligence community information, and the damage that does to the relationship of trust required to share intelligence within government.

That, and the trust required to share intelligence with friendly governments.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A major piece from The Atlantic, in which a pair of resolutely nonpartisan analysts throw in the towel and advise everybody, without exception, to boycott the GOP.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Yep to Brenda's article. Only the ballot box can save us (you, America, but us because that's how I feel and have always felt) now. Well, except when I'm playing around and stirring the pot.

[ 06. February 2018, 08:46: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Not to minimise the potential seriousness of the emerging 'bear market', but it was pretty funny yesterday comparing Trump's self-congratulatory remarks about the economy with the rapidly tumbling Dow.

I suppose he may claim that selling shares, like not applauding his SOTU address, is treason. Like most of us, I hope the current selling is just a course correction. The world needs another 2008 like it needs a hole in the head. But confidence is brittle at present, and with good reason.

One thing is for sure. Having taken undue credit for the boom, he's now set himself up to take responsibility for any bust.

[ 06. February 2018, 09:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A major piece from The Atlantic, in which a pair of resolutely nonpartisan analysts throw in the towel and advise everybody, without exception, to boycott the GOP.

Blimey, that would be my view, and I'm a Social Democrat, of sorts. These guys are non-partisan in the sense of "I want someone else to be right wing for me"!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not to minimise the potential seriousness of the emerging 'bear market', but it was pretty funny yesterday comparing Trump's self-congratulatory remarks about the economy with the rapidly tumbling Dow.

I suppose he may claim that selling shares, like not applauding his SOTU address, is treason. Like most of us, I hope the current selling is just a course correction. The world needs another 2008 like it needs a hole in the head. But confidence is brittle at present, and with good reason.

One thing is for sure. Having taken undue credit for the boom, he's now set himself up to take responsibility for any bust.

This is driven by a probable interest rate rise due to wage inflation. Nothing like 2008.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Indeed that is the hope. But confidence is a funny thing. And a lot of market analysts are sitting on the edge of their seats today, hoping this doesn't become a full blown bear market. There are long term consequences flowing from quantitative easing and tax cut stimulation.

One of the lessons of history is that the means of economic adjustment applied by governments and banks become less effective as they become more predictable. Investors adjust behaviour in advance.

So I hope you are right, Martin60. My instinct is 'wait and see'
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
As far as I can tell, this seems to be driven by a sentiment something along the lines of: "The buoyant world economy means companies will have to pay their workers more, so there'll be less cash for dividends, so I'm off to invest in property or just spend my profits".

Also many (most?) share trades are decided by algorithms maintained by institutional investors, and I'm guessing very few people know how they actually work.

Trump is as irrelevant to all this as any other individual.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
As far as I can tell, this seems to be driven by a sentiment something along the lines of: "The buoyant world economy means companies will have to pay their workers more, so there'll be less cash for dividends, so I'm off to invest in property or just spend my profits".

Also many (most?) share trades are decided by algorithms maintained by institutional investors, and I'm guessing very few people know how they actually work.

Trump is as irrelevant to all this as any other individual.

The fewer people know then the greater the likelihood of "herd mentality", cf NINJA lending which led to the 2007 credit crunch, amongst other economic SNAFUs.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There is a problem associated with the algorithms in common use. They consume a lot of data and spit out answers. They do this a lot quicker than human analysts do. So control over investment decisions is routinely ceded to what they spit out.

FWIW, the danger of herd behaviour because of the algorithms is that, even if separately written, they will tend to contain similar forecasting methods and come to the same conclusions. That's as best I understand it. They are necessary for rapid reaction, of course. But may turn out to be destabilising in practice.

Before this level of automation, there were always bulls and bears, taking differing views of the future. Now it's different.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have a tiny problem with this sort of event. If there are a lot of people selling, surely there are also a lot of people buying? Or am I missing something? Who would it be, presumably buying low to sell high at some time in the future?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Indeed that is the hope. But confidence is a funny thing. And a lot of market analysts are sitting on the edge of their seats today, hoping this doesn't become a full blown bear market. There are long term consequences flowing from quantitative easing and tax cut stimulation.

One of the lessons of history is that the means of economic adjustment applied by governments and banks become less effective as they become more predictable. Investors adjust behaviour in advance.

Despite Wall Street's self-importance, one of the key things to remember is that the stock market is not the economy. And stock plunges don't necessarily always presage recessions. Case in point: the Crash of 1987 (a.k.a. "Black Monday") wasn't caused by any underlying economic factors but rather market psychology. Everyone was selling because everyone else was selling.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


One thing is for sure. Having taken undue credit for the boom, he's now set himself up to take responsibility for any bust.

Oh, you sweet summer child. Take responsibility? Are we talking about Lyin' Don here? When has he ever accepted responsibility for anything? It is the root of his character, that Nothing Is His Fault. Ever! Someone else is certainly to blame, like for instance
his predecessor, say the pinheads on Fox News. Of course after the debacle of the Wars of the Roses Obama's role cannot be denied; he's also on the hook for Pearl Harbor. And I'm sure that Hillary will come in on it any moment; it's probably in her emails.

More thoughtfully, a consideration of how to label this phenomenon. A name is a handle -- you can work with a thing, once it has a name. All these clicks should be free.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thanks, Brenda - but Be Warned! That second link produces a full-screen image of the Hideous Orange Face..... [Projectile]

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Croesos

We agree. I'm waiting to see whether this is just market psychology, or there are real reasons to believe that the US economy has been destabilised. I think the jury is out at present.

Brenda

Now I'm 75 you can call me a sweet summer child any time you like. My wife loved it. It may become a family nickname.

But to be serious, Trump is only Teflon with his 35% core uncritical support. The other 65% will take further note.

So 'Little Adam Schiff' is a great big liar. Democrats who don't applaud him are unAmerican, traitorous. Nunes is a great American hero. Trump is totally vindicated by the Nunes memo despite key GOP voices saying 'no such thing'. Mueller is out to trap him into perjury. On and on it goes. And most of the GOP connive to support this nonsense. Its a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Thanks, Brenda - but Be Warned! That second link produces a full-screen image of the Hideous Orange Face..... [Projectile]

IJ

There's a very popular app you can get, that automagically swaps out his face for that of a kitten.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Thanks, Brenda - but Be Warned! That second link produces a full-screen image of the Hideous Orange Face..... [Projectile]

IJ

There's a very popular app you can get, that automagically swaps out his face for that of a kitten.
Could I get a puppy instead?
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Despite Wall Street's self-importance, one of the key things to remember is that the stock market is not the economy.

Quite true. That is why I ignored Trump when he was pointing to the stock market gains as proof that he was good for the economy. And why I will not dog-pile on Trump for the stock market decline. Although, to the extent the decline is because of fears of inflation, I pointed out many months ago that Trump's idea of increasing tariffs and "bringing back jobs from overseas" (where they went because it was cheaper) could only have the end result of triggering inflation. No surprise there.

On a side issue, despite Trump's railing against the US trade deficit, the trade deficit surged during his first year in office. And before anybody suggests that this is a hangover from Obama, I note that:
quote:
The deficit grew especially strongly in the final month of the year, adding 5.3 percent to reach $53.1 billion in December, the highest since October 2008.

 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Melania's reported marital problems always remind me of the old adage, "If you marry for money you'll be earning it for the rest of your life." She was the luckiest girl at the Kit Kat club that night and if it means she has to spend four long years, miles away from Tiffany's, in a house with very few gold furnishings then so be it.

She would get Barron. Marla got Trump's daughter. Trump doesn't want to bother scheduling nannys and dentist appointments.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The Christians responsible for Trump. This should be a free click.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Profoundly distressing.

[Disappointed]

The writer's use of the lower-case g when referring to 'god' is somehow quite powerful, though I'm not sure why.

IJ
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Melania's reported marital problems always remind me of the old adage, "If you marry for money you'll be earning it for the rest of your life." She was the luckiest girl at the Kit Kat club that night and if it means she has to spend four long years, miles away from Tiffany's, in a house with very few gold furnishings then so be it.

She would get Barron. Marla got Trump's daughter. Trump doesn't want to bother scheduling nannys and dentist appointments.

Yeah, I put speculation about their marriage in the 'Trump is mad enough to trigger the maddie clause in the Constitution' category. It's either wishful thinking or click bait.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So Trump is apparently being advised by his lawyers not to agree to an interview with Robert Mueller*:

quote:
Lawyers for President Trump have advised him against sitting down for a wide-ranging interview with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to four people briefed on the matter, raising the specter of a monthslong court battle over whether the president must answer questions under oath.

His lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying to investigators.

Of course, not agreeing to a voluntary interview with the Special Counsel isn't the same as avoiding the Special Counsel altogether.

quote:
Refusing to sit for an interview opens the possibility that Mr. Mueller will subpoena the president to testify before a grand jury, setting up a court fight that would drastically escalate the investigation and could be decided by the Supreme Court.
So the choice is to submit to a voluntary interview, which can be done with the assistance of counsel, or take a chance on being subpœnaed where you have to testify without benefit of counsel. Of course it may be that Trump's lawyers don't like either option and are just picking the one that puts off facing Mueller the longest, hoping that something happens in the interim to get everyone off the hook.

This seems to have occurred to at least one member of Trump's legal team.

quote:
One of the few voices arguing for cooperating with Mr. Mueller is Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer whom Mr. Trump also brought on to deal with Mr. Mueller’s investigation.
Cobb seems to have made the assessment that it's better for Trump to talk to Mueller with his own lawyers present than without.

New York magazine puts it a little more bluntly than the Times saying Trump's Lawyers Seem to Think He’s Incapable of Not Lying. (Unlike the Times that's a free click.)


--------------------
*The New York Times has a paywall which allows non-subscribers to read 5 articles per calendar month. Only click through if you're a NYT subscriber or are willing to use one of your five monthly Times passes to read about Trump dragging his feet with the Special Counsel.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I read somewhere that there could be an agreement to answer questions in writing [Disappointed]

Apart from that being a hallmark of a con I helped expose, is that a likelihood?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I read somewhere that there could be an agreement to answer questions in writing [Disappointed]

Apart from that being a hallmark of a con I helped expose, is that a likelihood?

That is entirely at the discretion of the Special Counsel, so I guess it depends on Mueller. From my perspective he seems unlikely to be satisfied with having all answers in writing, though he may be willing to accept the format for answering preliminary questions. For those with an extra four hours or so to kill you can amuse yourself by watching the video of Bill Clinton's testimony to Ken Starr's grand jury. That's for those who are too young (or have memories too short) to recall that the U.S. has been here before. Given all the precedents available I'm not seeing any way for Trump to entirely avoid in person conversation/testimony.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a Post exclusive: Crooked Doin has ordered the Pentagon to prepare a parade. A big parade, the bigliest. Every time you think he's gotten as low as he can go, he beats your expectations.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

Given all the precedents available I'm not seeing any way for Trump to entirely avoid in person conversation/testimony.

Given his character and previous history as a witness, his advisers are, understandably, desperate to avoid that!

He lies and misrepresents routinely. There was a famous judge's quote about the disgraced UK politician John Stonehouse. 'For Mr Stonehouse, truth was a moving target'.

You can say that in spades for President Trump.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a Post exclusive: Crooked Doin has ordered the Pentagon to prepare a parade. A big parade, the bigliest. Every time you think he's gotten as low as he can go, he beats your expectations.

I'm not surprised, but neither am I much disturbed. A military parade (if it must be, I'd prefer 11 November - too distant for Trump to take credit - indeed, the significance may have to be explained to him) merely makes manifest what everyone already knows: that Trump gets a woody from things military (oh, to be 16 again at military school...), and that the US is the preeminent military power, and uses that power, or threat of it, to dominate the world. Those who get upset about - and, not without some good reasons - the idea of a military parade are merely being forced to acknowledge their citizenship in the Imperium. Were I an American, I'd balk, but I would acknowledge some ugly truths.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Were I an American, I'd balk, but I would acknowledge some ugly truths.

As an American, I can think of better uses for the extravagant number of arpents de neige such a pointless display is going to cost. Is this a signal that Don-Don wonders if his days are numbered? Parade now, jail later?

[ 07. February 2018, 00:23: Message edited by: Ohher ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

Given all the precedents available I'm not seeing any way for Trump to entirely avoid in person conversation/testimony.

Given his character and previous history as a witness, his advisers are, understandably, desperate to avoid that!

He lies and misrepresents routinely. There was a famous judge's quote about the disgraced UK politician John Stonehouse. 'For Mr Stonehouse, truth was a moving target'.

You can say that in spades for President Trump.

Little wonder that as a rookie he plays this game so effectively. Must be infuriating for those that have been practicing for decades...
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a Post exclusive: Crooked Doin has ordered the Pentagon to prepare a parade. A big parade, the bigliest. Every time you think he's gotten as low as he can go, he beats your expectations.

For those with no access to the Washington Post, here's the CNN story about it.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Jesus Christ. I am getting truly afraid. Anyone who is naive enough to think that the military, Ora Congress, or the Supreme Court, is going to keep Der Trumpenführer in check is a fool.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Were I an American, I'd balk, but I would acknowledge some ugly truths.

As an American, I can think of better uses for the extravagant number of arpents de neige such a pointless display is going to cost. Is this a signal that Don-Don wonders if his days are numbered? Parade now, jail later?
I don't think that Trump thinks that his days are numbered. I'm not certain that they are numbered.

From the Ugly Truth Department: This is like moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The move puts on full display the fact that the US has long ceased to be an 'honest broker' in the mideast. Similarly a military parade would publicly acknowledge the role of the military in politics at home and abroad: economically and psychologically. No more fig leaves.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
worst case scenario: only 7 years to go.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Yes! Let's have a military parade! The French did one on Bastille Day and we have to top that one. No problem that it will cost millions of dollars. No problem that Washington streets can't support 70-ton tanks. Sounds like someone has a problem with the size of his penis.

BTW, I think the Brits are also known for presenting great military parades. Let's see the OO top yours as well.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
if it must be, I'd prefer 11 November

This would be the most offensive date to choose - the day when so many millions of people are stopping to remember the tragedy of war. The fucking Yanks didn't win WW1. In fact NO ONE won. It was a monstrous cock-up from start to finish, whose impacts we are still living through. The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is a time for silence and mourning. Not a time for militaristic willy waving.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Yes! Let's have a military parade! The French did one on Bastille Day and we have to top that one. No problem that it will cost millions of dollars. No problem that Washington streets can't support 70-ton tanks.

Let’s hope all is miscalculated and the tanks fall into holes in the road causing complete chaos and gridlock. Let him be shown up for what he is, a Trumped up dictator in waiting.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Trump gets a woody from things military

Woody feet, apparently.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

BTW, I think the Brits are also known for presenting great military parades. Let's see the OO top yours as well.

We have the annual ceremony of Trooping the Colour, which marks the sovereign's (official) birthday by inviting him/her to inspect the troops that traditionally guard the royal household.

It involves about 1200 blokes in retro uniforms marching around Horseguards Parade. We don't go in for the tanks 'n' missiles thing - very vulgar.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
worst case scenario: only 7 years to go.

Assuming he doesn't have the numbers to amend the constitution, or simply declare a state of emergency.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Presumably the object is to demonstrate that he has Made America Great Again.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

Given all the precedents available I'm not seeing any way for Trump to entirely avoid in person conversation/testimony.

Given his character and previous history as a witness, his advisers are, understandably, desperate to avoid that!

He lies and misrepresents routinely. There was a famous judge's quote about the disgraced UK politician John Stonehouse. 'For Mr Stonehouse, truth was a moving target'.

You can say that in spades for President Trump.

Little wonder that as a rookie he plays this game so effectively. Must be infuriating for those that have been practicing for decades...
It's pretty easy for him to be effective with his loyal 35% base support.

But for the others? He's too obviously a purveyor of snake oil. And he lies, blatantly, frequently, relentlessly. As we have daily proof.

Plus he has zero interest in defending the Constitution of the United States, as he promised when taking office, if principles like separation of powers get in the way of what he wants to do.

So I don't think you can describe his lying skills as on any kind of previous Presidential news management scale. He's in a class of one. And should serve as a dreadful warning against any repetition.

[ 07. February 2018, 09:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I read somewhere that there could be an agreement to answer questions in writing [Disappointed]

Apart from that being a hallmark of a con I helped expose, is that a likelihood?

The fabled Reading Outpouring?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
06:11:12:20:03:08

[ 07. February 2018, 09:27: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Martin60

Mild rebuke coming up.

Some of us can work out your codes. But they are a form of disrespect to the many Shipmates asking what the hell are you up to now.

Translate, please

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
06:11:12:20:03:08

I think that's 6 years 11 months 12 days 20 hours 3 minutes and 8 seconds
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Gramps49
quote:
BTW, I think the Brits are also known for presenting great military parades. Let's see the OO top yours as well.
Actually no, we don't really have any military parades as such. The closest you'll find with all three branches of the military (sea, land and air) represented is in the procession at the end of a coronation.

What we do have is Trooping the Colour but it only involves land troops from a very small section of the army, plus a small fly past once the royal family have returned to the palace.

The choreography of Trooping the Colour has been refined over many, many years and is all based around the ceremonial heart of London. Frankly, the possibility of DT, the Pentagon, or any combination of those being able to pull off something similar - but MUCH BIGGER OF COURSE - within 6 months is nil.

[ 07. February 2018, 10:25: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, we can look forward to the sight of The Great Lord Of The West standing on his podium wearing his square fur hat (dyed orange, to match the pile of cat fur he usually wears), taking the salute as THE BIGLIEST ARMY IN THE WORLD marches past.

Wouldn't it be fun if they all did a Moonie as they went by?

Or went round the corner, wheeled back, arrested the GLOTW, and carted him off to jug?

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
Perhaps the military personnel will just all pull a sickie that day.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Perhaps the military personnel will just all pull a sickie that day.

I initially misread that as "sickle."
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
06:11:12:20:03:08

I think that's 6 years 11 months 12 days 20 hours 3 minutes and 8 seconds
Sure. But why not just say only xxxxxxxxxx maximum until all this agony is over? Any more chat in the Styx please.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Perhaps the military personnel will just all pull a sickie that day.

I initially misread that as "sickle."
And a hammer. To keep the old school Russkies happy.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
if it must be, I'd prefer 11 November

This would be the most offensive date to choose - the day when so many millions of people are stopping to remember the tragedy of war. The fucking Yanks didn't win WW1. In fact NO ONE won. It was a monstrous cock-up from start to finish, whose impacts we are still living through. The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month is a time for silence and mourning. Not a time for militaristic willy waving.
That's part of my point. The other proposed dates don't have death quite so front and centre (at least, not in my estimation - I invite American shipmates to correct me). It's not a "victory day", so rather undercuts any attempt at triumphalism. As a global comparison of observances on that day, the Americans would invite ridicule and opprobium if they were to try to turn it into a jingo-fest.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
They always do something in the US on Veterans Day, and as I recall it is often a parade in Washington DC -- my son marched in it once, with his Reserve company. It is always unmilitaristic, with Scout troupes and people dressed as George Washington or Uncle Sam, and very minor local officials sitting in convertibles waving at people who don't recognize them. Lots of flags, no armaments.
A more truly American parade is the local 4th of July or Memorial Day parades. These often involve the Shriners (aka the Masons) in their various costume iterations, clowns, horses, hillbillies, and so forth. There are floats, constructed by scout groups or even the senior citizen home. The library always has a Library Cart Drill Team and I have marched wrangling a giant balloon (in the shape of an eagle; by being inattentive to our cables we could make the eagle's wings flap). Because this is the mid-Atlantic there's always people dressed in Colonial costume, a group of people in Civil War uniforms, and at least four or five high school marching bands. These parades are truly fun; everyone brings the kids and a good time is had by all -- the true America.
But since there is no weaponry the phallic needs of the pussygrabber will not be met, and so he has to have something different.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
There is a stark difference between Veterans' Day and Armistice Day (11th November) or Remembrance Sunday.

Veterans' Day is to "honor", i.e. celebrate living people who have served in the military; the US war dead are remembered on Memorial Day.

Given DJT's clouded involvement with things military I'd have thought his wishing to have an event highlighting that to be evidence of either hubris or insanity, possibly both. For him to choose to have a vainglorious military display on 11th November would be an especial affront to the UK and France (among others) who lost so many in WWI when US casualties from combat were fewer than India, Canada or Bulgaria.

[ 07. February 2018, 13:42: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I hear that the battle tanks will chew up the tarmac. Wonder about heavy duty missile carriers?

Also whether the Donald will use some kind of straight arm salute.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
El Presidente’s relationship to France and Manu Macron intrigues me. Trump’s interest in a big military parade is clearly motivated by being invited to the 14th of July here. (BTW – driving tanks over the roads does indeed knacker them. The state of the roads in Paris is generally shocking – I endeavour to read a book as I ride the bus most days, and can tell you exactly where the roads are where this is strictly impossible because of the juddering. The Champs Elysées is one and the armoured vehicles do nothing to improve matters.)

A couple of things: Manu turned up on the Champs Elysées in the back of an open-top military vehicle, waving and flashing his pearly-whites at the crowds, which had to impress El Presidente. I think it’s safe to assume that Manu was wearing a bullet-proof vest underneath his snappy tailoring, but nonetheless the chance of Trump being allowed to do the same is exactly zero. Post-JFK, US Presidents Do. Not. Do drive-bys in open vehicles. Ever.

Beyond that, Trump seems to get on with Macron, and even to rather admire him. This fascinates me because Macron has made it clear from the famous handshake wars on that he is not going to be pushed around by the big orange aberration. Supremely arrogant as he is, Manu seems to me genuinely to enjoy standing up to bullies (Exhibit the first: Vladimir Putin. Exhibit the second: Recep Erdogan) and somehow this wins Trump’s respect.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Gramps49
quote:
BTW, I think the Brits are also known for presenting great military parades. Let's see the OO top yours as well.
Actually no, we don't really have any military parades as such. The closest you'll find with all three branches of the military (sea, land and air) represented is in the procession at the end of a coronation.

What we do have is Trooping the Colour but it only involves land troops from a very small section of the army, plus a small fly past once the royal family have returned to the palace.

The choreography of Trooping the Colour has been refined over many, many years and is all based around the ceremonial heart of London. Frankly, the possibility of DT, the Pentagon, or any combination of those being able to pull off something similar - but MUCH BIGGER OF COURSE - within 6 months is nil.

As a GLA* I get a bit twitchy about military stuff like Trooping of the Colour, Remembrance et. al. but I am generally reassured by my interaction with military and ex-military people. The people I worry about are people who wouldn't dream of joining the armed services but identify strongly wit the military. Like Don.. ah, my bad, forget I said anything.

*Good Little Augustinian, thank you for asking.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Given his character and previous history as a witness, his advisers are, understandably, desperate to avoid that!

He lies and misrepresents routinely. There was a famous judge's quote about the disgraced UK politician John Stonehouse. 'For Mr Stonehouse, truth was a moving target'.

You can say that in spades for President Trump.

Little wonder that as a rookie he plays this game so effectively. Must be infuriating for those that have been practicing for decades...
It seems inaccurate to portray Donald Trump as a "rookie" liar. He's been lying publicly for decades, from falsely telling black apartment seekers he has nothing available to telling his construction contractors that the check is in the mail to claiming that every instructor at Trump "University" was hand-picked by him to all three sets of his wedding vows. And Trump isn't even especially good at it, despite his years of near constant practice. His lies are still fairly transparent and laughably self-serving.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Trump gets a woody from things military

Woody feet, apparently.
Trump's military posturing and accusations of treason against anyone who doesn't clap hard enough for him ("Tinker Bell Syndrome"?) seems to have gotten up the nose of Tammy Duckworth:

quote:
We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. I swore an oath — in the military and in the Senate — to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not to mindlessly cater to the whims of Cadet Bone Spurs and clap when he demands I clap
For those who are unfamiliar with her, Senator Duckworth (D-IL) is a retired Lieutenant Colonel who lost both legs in combat in Iraq.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, I wondered about General Genitalgrabber the Great doing a straight-arm salute.

I also wondered if he could manage a straight-willy salute, to match the ICBMs....

I'll get me coat...

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, I wondered about General Genitalgrabber the Great doing a straight-arm salute.

Some of his more ardent supporters already have that covered.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
El Presidente’s relationship to France and Manu Macron intrigues me. Trump’s interest in a big military parade is clearly motivated by being invited to the 14th of July here.

This is the root of the trouble. Crooked Don is very, very VERY easily influenced for evil. I could really wish that Macron had invited him to a book circle, or Euro Disney, or a tour of the Paris Catacombs. A mistaken hospitable impulse and we're all on the hook for this.

More seriously from the Atlantic, an analysis of the Trump/FBI issues.

[ 07. February 2018, 14:43: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Given his character and previous history as a witness, his advisers are, understandably, desperate to avoid that!

He lies and misrepresents routinely. There was a famous judge's quote about the disgraced UK politician John Stonehouse. 'For Mr Stonehouse, truth was a moving target'.

You can say that in spades for President Trump.

Little wonder that as a rookie he plays this game so effectively. Must be infuriating for those that have been practicing for decades...
It seems inaccurate to portray Donald Trump as a "rookie" liar.
I thought it was obvious enough that no POTUS is a rookie liar. The "game" I refer to is the national political game.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
M. Macron is clearly playing the Lord of Modern Mordor for the fool he is (the LOMM, I mean), but perhaps Manu is going just a game too far.

One can only hope that a VERY BIGLY sinkhole appears immediately under his BIGLIEST PODIUM IN THE WORLD just as the Orange Lord takes the salute.

Of course, if such an enticing event does occur, it will be because America Is Great Again, And Has Biglier Sinkholes Than Shithole Countries...

Covfefe, anyone?

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I thought it was obvious enough that no POTUS is a rookie liar. The "game" I refer to is the national political game.

Given that you were responding to (and quoting) B62's post about Trump's indifferent relationship with the truth, it doesn't seem that obvious you were talking about "the national political game". On that level Trump certainly isn't "play[ing] this game so effectively". Despite Republicans having control of all branches of the federal government their only significant accomplishment to date is a highly unpopular tax bill which Trump had almost nothing to do with.

Donald "Shutdown" Trump having trouble keeping the lights on is not what anyone else considers "effective", and it's kind of appalling that you consider the actual human suffering this would involve to be a "game".
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
While Trump is a habitual liar and a pathological liar, he really is not very good at it. If you tell a really good lie, no one ever detects it. Robert Heinlein commented once that telling a wholly successful lie is as difficult as composing a wholly successful opera.

I have heard (I don't recall where) that one of the most talented liars in history was Niccolo Macchiavelli, who stayed in practice by lying to his friends and family--and they couldn't tell. Trump is no Macchiavelli. (Also, of course, Macchiavelli was a great admirer of the republic, not the principality, as a system of government, another difference from Trump.)

The very slickest way to lie, of course, is to tell the exact truth, all of it and nothing more, but to do so unconvincingly. (Some preachers do this, perhaps unwittingly.)
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
One can only hope that a VERY BIGLY sinkhole appears immediately under his BIGLIEST PODIUM IN THE WORLD just as the Orange Lord takes the salute.

Of course, if such an enticing event does occur, it will be because America Is Great Again, And Has Biglier Sinkholes Than Shithole Countries...

Covfefe, anyone?

IJ

If it happens (please!), it will certainly be Obama's fault, or maybe Hillary's.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
oh the money tangent, it looks like a course correction, rather than some underlying loss of confidence. And that's good news for now.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The local government says Tanks but No Tanks.

“I don’t think anyone believes this would be about trying to honor men and women who serve our country. This would only be about feeding one man’s ego,” said Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6). Non-Americans should know that the District of Columbia, and all the affiliated suburbs for a day's drive all around, are resolutely blue and voted for Clinton.

In theory the federal government would pay to repave the roads after the tanks chew up the pavement, but you'd be a fool to trust Crooked Don's promises of future compensation. (What is he going to do, use the money that Mexico is going to give us for the wall?) And the traffic tie-ups while they relay the asphalt are horrible to contemplate.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In theory the federal government would pay to repave the roads after the tanks chew up the pavement, but you'd be a fool to trust Crooked Don's promises of future compensation.

Given the Republicans' persistent inability to appropriate a regular budget, this is a very reasonable position.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
A friend of mine confesses to a naughty fantasy involving Herr Trumpenführer riding down Pennsylvania Ave. Slim Pickens style, atop a missile launcher...whoopsie!
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
On reflection, I think that there should be a bloody big military parade in Washington. With the following provisos:
Then let the Orange Ego stand there in a winter's storm for 5+ hours and let's see how long he lasts....
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I think the Cat On His Head would succumb first...but he could probably save it. After all, he's good at grabbing pussies.

[Two face]

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
44.2's Veep, aides, and above, his Cabinet likewise. Also Speaker of the House and Senate President -- we cannot leave them out.

Maybe the Koch brothers, too? It's their coup, after all.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
El Presidente’s relationship to France and Manu Macron intrigues me. Trump’s interest in a big military parade is clearly motivated by being invited to the 14th of July here.

Well, that is what they are saying now, but it was reported as far back as Trump's January 2017 inauguration that he wanted a big military parade. So attributing it to him seeing a military parade in France in July is what politicians like to call "spin" and the rest of humanity calls "a lie."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
El Presidente’s relationship to France and Manu Macron intrigues me. Trump’s interest in a big military parade is clearly motivated by being invited to the 14th of July here.

Well, that is what they are saying now, but it was reported as far back as Trump's January 2017 inauguration that he wanted a big military parade. So attributing it to him seeing a military parade in France in July is what politicians like to call "spin" and the rest of humanity calls "a lie."
Actually it's called "quoting the available sources":

quote:
“The marching orders were: I want a parade like the one in France,” said a military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning discussions are supposed to remain confidential. “This is being worked at the highest levels of the military.”
Yes, Trump is a petty authoritarian who has always longed for a North Korean / Soviet style military parade and did indeed want such a spectacle for his inauguration, but apparently the French display prodded his gnat-like memory to re-prioritize this desire. Seeing the event in France (which we infer from our anonymous "military official") is what stirred the feelings of inadequacy in the short-fingered vulgarian and why this has apparently re-emerged as a priority now. Somewhat similar to his recent 'hey wait, didn't I say I'd do something about opioids?' moves.

[ 07. February 2018, 21:05: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
06:11:12:20:03:08

Sorry, EST years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds of Trump presidency remaining as at 08:56:52 GMT this morning.

[ 07. February 2018, 21:12: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
A friend of mine confesses to a naughty fantasy involving Herr Trumpenführer riding down Pennsylvania Ave. Slim Pickens style, atop a missile launcher...whoopsie!

"Wal, shoo! We'll have that parade if it harelips every newborn in Foggy Bottom!" (Apologies to the late great Slim Pickens and Stanley Kubrick.)

[ 07. February 2018, 21:40: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
44.2's Veep, aides, and above, his Cabinet likewise. Also Speaker of the House and Senate President -- we cannot leave them out.

Better mention them twice then.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually it's called "quoting the available sources"

All that means is that he has been lying about his "inspiration" since July. Give Trump some credit: even he is not so stupid as to say "I want a parade like my handler Vlad Putin has!"
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the Post, big parades soothe the authoritarianism, abetted by limp Republicans. I would add that long pointy missiles compensate for personal inadequacies; they don't call him Tiny Fingers for nothing.

Actually what he wants is a Roman triumph.

And the blistering Jennifer Rubin notes that if you really want to honor the troops putting the parade money into the VA would be tons more helpful.

Sorry these are all from the Post, but the local paper has inevitably a good deal of pungent commentary.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Given his character and previous history as a witness, his advisers are, understandably, desperate to avoid that!

He lies and misrepresents routinely. There was a famous judge's quote about the disgraced UK politician John Stonehouse. 'For Mr Stonehouse, truth was a moving target'.

You can say that in spades for President Trump.

Little wonder that as a rookie he plays this game so effectively. Must be infuriating for those that have been practicing for decades...
It seems inaccurate to portray Donald Trump as a "rookie" liar.
I thought it was obvious enough that no POTUS is a rookie liar. The "game" I refer to is the national political game.
I thought Trump said he was going to drain the swamp, not wallow in it. You can't use the behavior of other politicians to defend Trump. Defend him on his merits as you see them.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Defend him on his merits as you see them.

I don't defend Trump, but let me know when he starts assassinating US citizens with drone strikes and we can discuss his merits, or lack thereof.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I’m sure he’s taking notes from his bestie Vladimir, who’s so far helped at least 38 of his political critics meet with an array of unfortunate incidents.

[ 08. February 2018, 00:57: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
If the Trumperator is going to have a Roman triumph, which captive will be put to death at the moment he gets his acclamation? Hillary or Barack, perhaps? Or Mueller?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Defend him on his merits as you see them.

I don't defend Trump, but let me know when he starts assassinating US citizens with drone strikes and we can discuss his merits, or lack thereof.
Oh yeah I forgot. You only do drive-by criticism. Are you prepared to tell me why assassinating US citizens with drone strikes is wrong, while shooting them dead with guns in the homeland is OK?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The Trumperator will also need a slave to whisper in his ear that he is mortal. Pence, perhaps?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
And he'd need to display plenty of loot.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I’m sure Vlad is good for another loan... just add it to the tab.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The Trumperator will also need a slave to whisper in his ear that he is mortal. Pence, perhaps?

What about the bloke with a thyroid problem from New Jersey?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Defend him on his merits as you see them.

I don't defend Trump, but let me know when he starts assassinating US citizens with drone strikes and we can discuss his merits, or lack thereof.
Ah, it's only US citizens lives that matter, or those of rich Russians. And his imported wives.

You've got to face it Romanlion, a consequence of drone strikes and the like is retaliation against American interests and armed forces plus growing instability in the Middle East. If that can be believed.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Except that retaliation against American Interests has been going on since at least the 1950's. The Americans may as well do their worst if being hated is a reason not to do something.

Shall we talk about how much 'we' British are hated now?

I'm calling you to hell Romanlion.

[ 08. February 2018, 11:00: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
changed my mind, pointless.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Defend him on his merits as you see them.

I don't defend Trump, but let me know when he starts assassinating US citizens with drone strikes and we can discuss his merits, or lack thereof.
Oh yeah I forgot. You only do drive-by criticism. Are you prepared to tell me why assassinating US citizens with drone strikes is wrong, while shooting them dead with guns in the homeland is OK?
Trump shot someone?! Jeez, I guess he was right...I hadn't even heard about it!
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Simontoad: Chris Christie, the bloke from New Jersey who looks/ talks/ acts like a minor actor in a mob drama, has a new gig as special correspondent for ABC News. “ May you live in interesting times.”
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I don't defend Trump, but let me know when he starts assassinating US citizens with drone strikes and we can discuss his merits, or lack thereof.

Oh yeah I forgot. You only do drive-by criticism. Are you prepared to tell me why assassinating US citizens with drone strikes is wrong, while shooting them dead with guns in the homeland is OK?
Trump shot someone?! Jeez, I guess he was right...I hadn't even heard about it!
If your definition of responsibility requires pulling the trigger himself no American president has ever "assassinat[ed] US citizens with drone strikes" either. Isn't that reassuring?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a more vital story nonpartisan investigators digging into how Russian bots are tweeting to influence opinion. This is from NPR, a free click.

From the Guardian, Trump evangelical advisor says faith is better than flu shots. I am totally good with this, it's a free country. But I am going to make a sign for the Science march in April. It will say "Darwin Always Wins." Die of the flu if you want!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ romanlion

Is this what bothers you?

How about this?

Or this?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

From the Guardian, Trump evangelical advisor says faith is better than flu shots. I am totally good with this, it's a free country. But I am going to make a sign for the Science march in April. It will say "Darwin Always Wins." Die of the flu if you want!

Natural selection [Smile]

I feel sorry for the kids ‘tho.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the Guardian and very fine, the dean of Christ Church Oxford analyzing Crooked Don's religion. "Trump’s interior religious landscape is a kind of politico-spiritual Ponzi scheme, and his politics flow from this. Opportunism, pragmatism and positivism are the lessons Trump learned from Peale’s pulpit."
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
From Dean Percy's thoughtful article:
quote:
This age will pass.
Which reminded me of this wonderful passage, from Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings, at the point where Sam and Frodo are within the borders of Mordor, and struggling towards Mount Doom, in order to fulfil their quest:

quote:
There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him.

For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.

His song in the Tower had been defiance rather than hope; for then he was thinking of himself. Now, for a moment, his own fate, and even his master's, ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the brambles and laid himself by Frodo's side, and putting away all fear he cast himself into a deep untroubled sleep.

Crawl back into the brambles, O America, but soon, O Lord, soon....

IJ
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

From the Guardian, Trump evangelical advisor says faith is better than flu shots.

Is it wrong of me to hope she catches the flu?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

From the Guardian, Trump evangelical advisor says faith is better than flu shots. I am totally good with this, it's a free country. But I am going to make a sign for the Science march in April. It will say "Darwin Always Wins." Die of the flu if you want!

Natural selection [Smile]

I feel sorry for the kids ‘tho.

Alas, that's the Darwinian part of it. The stupid genes do not need to get into the gene pool. You =want= your children to survive to reproduce. We are, every single one of us, descendants in a long unbroken line of people who knew that. If your desire for this is in any way flawed, you are defective. You not only will not have grandchildren, you ought not. I certainly do not want my grandson to marry this woman's descendants, if any. (He is not yet two, so it's not really an issue.)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ romanlion

Is this what bothers you?

How about this?

Or this?

No, more like this.


"Thanks to Obama’s actions, Donald Trump will be inaugurated into an office that presumes the authority to secretly order the extrajudicial killings of American citizens. Was the particular way that Obama targeted Anwar al-Awlaki worth that price?"
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Strange logic, romanlion. Obama legitimates drone strikes too freely, realises this was wrong, tries to wrap more control around the process with some partial success.

Trump comes into office, gives every sign of wanting to take the gloves off. So that somehow makes Trump's increased aggressiveness Obama's fault?

Use of targeted drone strikes is brutal and causes innocent deaths. No question. It's better than carpet bombing or chemical gassing.

Be thankful you don't sit in the White House and face these vile choices in seeking to reduce the threats of international terrorism.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Obama legitimates drone strikes too freely, realises this was wrong, tries to wrap more control around the process...

That's your strange logic right there, particularly from a guy who refers to himself as a "constitutional law professor".

You expect that Trump's red-tailed opponent would have done any different than he has?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
You expect that Trump's red-tailed opponent would have done any different than he has?

Reflexive (but unreflective) Bothsidesism must be one hell of a drug. I suspect it's at least as hard to kick as heroin. I can see the attraction. It gives the illusory appearance of worldly-wise cynicism as a cover for being unable (or unwilling) to do any kind of analysis. Plus you get to the rush of feeling morally superior to anyone who expresses a strong opinion about anything.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Clinton isn't a dove. I think it highly unlikely she'd have cut back on drone strikes.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Use of targeted drone strikes is brutal and causes innocent deaths. No question. It's better than carpet bombing or chemical gassing.

Be thankful you don't sit in the White House and face these vile choices in seeking to reduce the threats of international terrorism.

Which puts these things beyond criticism, which I'm sure wasn't your intention.

I don't think there's anything particularly controversial with suggesting that the direction of the past few years has meant that a number of precedents have been set that are rather unfortunate.

Which tends to cast some of the Democrats current lionisation of the intelligence services in a different light,
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Clinton isn't a dove. I think it highly unlikely she'd have cut back on drone strikes.

Would she have increased them as much as Trump has? If you're going to argue a counter-factual you should present more than a hand-waving "eh, she's a 'hawk' so she'd be exactly the same as Donald Trump in every possible way". That's pretty much exactly what I mean about the inherent laziness of reflexive bothsidesism. It's not a serious analysis, it's a dodge to avoid serious analysis.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And surely by now the 'But Hillary would be -worse-' argument can be laid to rest? The current incumbent has been in there for more than a year now. A solid case can be made that -nobody- could be worse. I personally yearn for Mitt Romney, dog-crate and all.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Use of targeted drone strikes is brutal and causes innocent deaths. No question. It's better than carpet bombing or chemical gassing.

Be thankful you don't sit in the White House and face these vile choices in seeking to reduce the threats of international terrorism.

Which puts these things beyond criticism, which I'm sure wasn't your intention.

I don't think there's anything particularly controversial with suggesting that the direction of the past few years has meant that a number of precedents have been set that are rather unfortunate.

Which tends to cast some of the Democrats current lionisation of the intelligence services in a different light,

chris

Obama doesn't get a free pass from me on this issue. To say that values and ethics get put through a meat grinder when trying to find effective responses to terrorism is putting it mildly.

Horrid though it may be, there is a trade off in place balancing the value of killing a terrorist leader against the risk of death or injury to civilians. Similar arguments were in play in WW2 over the bombing of strategic targets. In its most extreme form, the trade off landed on Harry Truman's desk over the A Bomb dropping. How many allied lives would be saved by shortening the war?

The drone argument simply exposes this trade off in a different way. We can debate the morality of all such trade off decisions from the comfort of our armchairs, be as purist as we like. We don't get to live with the responsibility either way.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you're going to argue a counter-factual you should present more than a hand-waving "eh, she's a 'hawk' so she'd be exactly the same as Donald Trump in every possible way".

That applies to counter-factuals in both directions.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Obama doesn't get a free pass from me on this issue.

I'm not sure in what sense he isn't getting a free pass:

quote:

The drone argument simply exposes this trade off in a different way. We can debate the morality of all such trade off decisions from the comfort of our armchairs, be as purist as we like. We don't get to live with the responsibility either way.

"It's all too complicated, you can't possibly understand or make judgements on such conduct"
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Do you think all such trade off arguments are immoral? If so, there are no complications at all.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Do you think all such trade off arguments are immoral? If so, there are no complications at all.

Not necessarily, but I don't think I'd trust even the most saintly human with the sorts of (largely unchecked) powers it implies especially when conducted within the aegis of a anywhere and forever war.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you're going to argue a counter-factual you should present more than a hand-waving "eh, she's a 'hawk' so she'd be exactly the same as Donald Trump in every possible way".

That applies to counter-factuals in both directions.
That doesn't really make sense. Donald Trump's actions as president* are not a "counter-factual". They're factual reality. Claiming that Hillary Clinton agrees with Donald Trump about everything and would therefore take the exact same actions as Trump is counter-factual in that it is counter to the facts.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That doesn't really make sense. Donald Trump's actions as president* are not a "counter-factual". They're factual reality.

Claiming that Clinton would have necessarily been less hawkish is the counterfactual.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It doesn't just boil down to a Commander in Chief in a situation room somewhere saying 'go' or 'no go'.

The recent movie 'Eye in the Sky' explored the deadly trade-off in some detail, and there was much buck-passing going on in the assessment of political risk, military advantage, casualty risk. Figures got fudged. It is a messy decision and includes some load sharing. I guess there are some 'algorithms' in use to evaluate the risks and advantages.

Nothing will make it less dirty than it is.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That doesn't really make sense. Donald Trump's actions as president* are not a "counter-factual". They're factual reality.

Claiming that Clinton would have necessarily been less hawkish is the counterfactual.
Have I actually made that claim? Has anyone here? Brenda has made the blanket statement that no one is worse than Trump, but she didn't couch it in terms of a policy of an expanded bombing campaign.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It doesn't just boil down to a Commander in Chief in a situation room somewhere saying 'go' or 'no go'.

The recent movie 'Eye in the Sky' explored the deadly trade-off in some detail

Sure - and we have some documentation on how the procedure is carried out so we don't need to rely purely on fictional accounts. As an example here:

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/

quote:

It is a messy decision and includes some load sharing.

Which is certainly one way that no one is responsible for any mistakes - which are minimized anyway given the frequent classification of all military aged men as 'combatants'.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
You know who really didn't give Obama a pass?

Malala Yousafzai. She was ticked off about him blowing up her country and told him so to his face. Because "when God gives you a voice, you must use it, even if it's to tell the President of the United States that he's wrong."

I love that girl. [Axe murder]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
The use of drones is a wedge issue. Romanlion couldn't give a rat's arse about it. But he knows that it will get opponents of Trump arguing with each other and deflect criticism away from the fact that Trump is not fully human, but the six-million dollar man. That's how much he has spent on hair replacement therapy.

We live in a shitty world where force is a tool of international relations. Like Romanlion, I don't give a rat's arse about drone strikes in our current situation. I like them. And I like full-on assassinations carried out by the secret services, and I like kidnapping people off the street. I would like Australian and other fighters in the middle east to die on the battlefield rather than return home. I'm especially keen for Filipino and Indonesian militants to die in that way rather than return home.

If I've had enough to drink I will say I don't mind Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries executing dirtbag Australian drug mules either. Obviously it would be better if we could put out their eyes and slit their noses so that they had a chance to repent of their sins, but wussy liberals won't let us do that anymore.

Now that I've muddied my point (Romanlion is giving us a WEDGIE), I'll shut up.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
chris stiles

Re the Intercept links, which I hadn't seen, do you agree their use of the term assassinations?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Re the Intercept links, which I hadn't seen, do you agree their use of the term assassinations?

Depends on which sense it is being used. In the strictly literal sense it's correct. In the legal sense the entire issue is grey which is a big part of the problem.

Once a mechanism is created it will be used by everyone who comes to office - which is why they should be created with checks and balances to start with. In the case of the drone program there is no sense in which there is an independent review of the effectiveness - or otherwise - of such a program.

If any oppressed people group was running a similar program against their occupiers with similar levels of collateral damage we would have no hesitation in condemning the means used.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The use of drones is a wedge issue. Romanlion couldn't give a rat's arse about it.

Despite your apparent discernment of what I do and do not give a rat's ass about, rest assured that I care quite a bit more about the targeted, extra-judicial assassination of US citizens by the chief executive than I do (insert your idea of an equivalent Trump barbarism here), thank you kindly.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I thought US Law was clear. POTUS has broad discretion to classify individuals as unlawful enemy combatants on the basis of information put before him. Once that classification has been determined, then the individual becomes a potential military target.

I know there is dispute under international law about the human rights of unlawful enemy combatants, but I don't think it is disputed that people may be justifiably classified as such.

So I don't think the term assassination is correct as a matter of law. Assassin is a term applied to people operating outside the law.

If there is a legal problem with the law governing the POTUS broad discretionary powers in classifying people as unlawful enemy combatants, then that can be argued up to the Supreme Court if necessary. Is there court action along those lines in progress? Is there any similar action in Congress?

Can a US citizen also be an unlawful enemy combatant under current US law? I would have thought the answer to that is yes, but I'm happy to be corrected.

[ 08. February 2018, 22:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The use of drones is a wedge issue. Romanlion couldn't give a rat's arse about it.

Despite your apparent discernment of what I do and do not give a rat's ass about, rest assured that I care quite a bit more about the targeted, extra-judicial assassination of US citizens by the chief executive than I do (insert your idea of an equivalent Trump barbarism here), thank you kindly.
So put your argument, and respond to my earlier question directly.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The use of drones is a wedge issue. Romanlion couldn't give a rat's arse about it.

Despite your apparent discernment of what I do and do not give a rat's ass about, rest assured that I care quite a bit more about the targeted, extra-judicial assassination of US citizens by the chief executive than I do (insert your idea of an equivalent Trump barbarism here), thank you kindly.
So put your argument, and respond to my earlier question directly.
Which question is that? I see 3 question marks in your posts just on this page.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
As a follow up, here is a detailed look at the legality of drone strikes. And this is the grey area. What limits apply to the pursuit of unlawful combatants, given that the traditional definition of battleground doesn't really work any more.

[ 08. February 2018, 23:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I'm thinking you might be using your phone, and that's why you're sticking to distracting one-liners. Otherwise, it looks like you can't put an argument at all, or lack the courage to put it forward properly.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Whatever you say skip.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Different tack. Anderson Cooper is just interviewing Rob Porter's second wife. She has said that both she and his first wife told the FBI about his abusive behaviour as part of their background check in March 2017. It seems that Kelly sat on the FBI feedback for months. Porter's wife observed, remarkably, that Porter was probably capable of 'spinning' any FBI report, downplaying its importance, keeping Kelly onside.

Remarkable interview in many ways.

[ 09. February 2018, 00:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
And now White House Staff Secretary, arguably the third most powerful person in the white house, after the President, and the Chief of Staff, is forced to resign because of allegations of spousal abuse from his two former wives.

How did he become so powerful? Ask the groper in chief.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Whatever you say skip.

yeah. No guts.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Whatever you say skip.

yeah. No guts.
What was your question again? Other than the one I responded to directly?

[ 09. February 2018, 01:03: Message edited by: romanlion ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Whatever you say skip.

yeah. No guts.
I don't normally stick my Host Hat on when I'm actively participating in a thread, but this is obvious.

simontoad, you're over the Commandment 3 fault line. Take it to Hell by all means, but leave it out here.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
A comment that seemed both cheeky and accurate is: тrump falls for glorious яussian tradition of military parades! How apropos.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
That was one of my first thoughts. Very Russian!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As a follow up, here is a detailed look at the legality of drone strikes. And this is the grey area. What limits apply to the pursuit of unlawful combatants, given that the traditional definition of battleground doesn't really work any more.

Which glosses over the irregular nature of the 'war' (both in temporal and spatial terms), and completely ignores the issue of so-called 'signature strikes'.

Though we are going off topic here.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
BBC News reports this year's second US government shutdown.

What can we infer from this? That the country is becoming ungovernable? Or that General Groper is trying to achieve the BIGLIEST numbers of such shutdowns EVER?

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As a follow up, here is a detailed look at the legality of drone strikes. And this is the grey area. What limits apply to the pursuit of unlawful combatants, given that the traditional definition of battleground doesn't really work any more.

Which glosses over the irregular nature of the 'war' (both in temporal and spatial terms), and completely ignores the issue of so-called 'signature strikes'.

Though we are going off topic here.

chris and others

I think it is worth a separate thread.

See here.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Granted it will require some skill from the Speaker, which is a concern for Trump I'm sure, but now that Schumer has ceded his leverage the package will likely hit all of Trump's enforcement requirements, while only directly addressing the relatively small DACA population.

Has Schumer ceded any leverage? It seems like there's just as much leverage in three weeks when the continuing resolution expires as there was last weekend. He may have even more, since Republicans can no longer hold CHIP kids hostage.
Guess not...
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The government shutdowns can't in all fairness be blamed upon Liddle Donny. It's Congress which is dysfunctional. He could of course refuse to sign what they send him, but historically this rarely happens.
Likewise Congress is responsible for budgetary matters. The sepulchers are exceptionally whited today on this point. It is plain that budget deficits are only a problem when the other guy is doing them. For me, not you, just like Supreme Court justices and porn stars.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Different tack. Anderson Cooper is just interviewing Rob Porter's second wife. She has said that both she and his first wife told the FBI about his abusive behaviour as part of their background check in March 2017. It seems that Kelly sat on the FBI feedback for months. Porter's wife observed, remarkably, that Porter was probably capable of 'spinning' any FBI report, downplaying its importance, keeping Kelly onside.

Remarkable interview in many ways.

Particularly the fact that the person who controlled the flow of information to the president* was unable to get a permanent security clearance.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Looks like Jared and Ivanka want Kelly gone. Chaos rules.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Particularly the fact that the person who controlled the flow of information to the president*

* I thought that was the producer of Fox & Friends?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So Donald Trump wishes accused wife beater Rob Porter well and hopes "he will have a great career ahead of him". How nice of him. He also took the trouble to point out (repeatedly) that Porter denies the allegations. I guess because his accusers are all women and you know you can't trust those character assassins. Just ask Orrin Hatch.

And in other news this seems to have slipped in under the media radar.

quote:
Russians penetrated U.S. voter systems, top U.S. official says

The U.S. official in charge of protecting American elections from hacking says the Russians successfully penetrated the voter registration rolls of several U.S. states prior to the 2016 presidential election.

In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Jeanette Manfra, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, said she couldn't talk about classified information publicly, but in 2016, "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

We're not quite there yet, but we're edging closer to the point where questions about whether votes or voter rolls were changed aren't something that can be dismissed out of hand. And there's this very closely parsed sentence.

quote:
There is no evidence that any of the registration rolls were altered in any fashion, according to U.S. officials.
"There is no evidence" could mean any number of things from "there's no evidence because it didn't happen" to "there's no evidence because we haven't found any yet" to "there's no evidence because we're afraid to look".
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
In the midst of all these downers this fellow is enormously encouraging There are prophets among us yet!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
More oops!

Trump calls in WH press corps and delivers a praise-filled valedictory re Rob Porter. Zero reference to his wives.

Another WH aide resigns over domestic abuse allegations.

Kelly is said to have offered his resignation over the full clearance fiasco, is now busily glossing his actions re Porter's resignation.

Up to 40 WH staff and aides still do not have full security clearance, 13 months into the life of this administration.

Oh .. and the Democratic memo has not been released. Redactions are necessary.

Just another day in the White House ..
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
More oops!

Trump calls in WH press corps and delivers a praise-filled valedictory re Rob Porter. Zero reference to his wives.

Another WH aide resigns over domestic abuse allegations.

Kelly is said to have offered his resignation over the full clearance fiasco, is now busily glossing his actions re Porter's resignation.

Up to 40 WH staff and aides still do not have full security clearance, 13 months into the life of this administration.

Oh .. and the Democratic memo has not been released. Redactions are necessary.

Just another day in the White House ..

Is there any suggestion anywhere that he might be a murderer?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Is there any suggestion anywhere that he might be a murderer?

Who knows?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"There is no evidence" could mean any number of things from "there's no evidence because it didn't happen" to "there's no evidence because we haven't found any yet" to "there's no evidence because we're afraid to look".

Or "There is no evidence because we have destroyed it."

[ 10. February 2018, 03:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Heard on the radio that VP Pence managed to snub some people at the Olympics.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Our coverage here had several cutaways during the historic, moving procession of the unified Korean team. The entire stadium was on their feet, cheering wildly, including those sitting with the Pences. VP Pence and his wife ("mother") remained seated, no applause looking bored.

I'm so embarrassed by our government
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yup. [Frown]

BTW, on that "mother" thing": It used to be a thing for parents to call each other "mother" and "father" in front of the kids--and, sometimes, they'd just get in the habit and keep doing it as an endearment.

I don't know if that's why Pence does it. FWIW.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Has America opened for business again yet? Or is the 'CLOSED' sign still firmly on the door?

[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Our coverage here had several cutaways during the historic, moving procession of the unified Korean team. The entire stadium was on their feet, cheering wildly, including those sitting with the Pences. VP Pence and his wife ("mother") remained seated, no applause looking bored.

I'm so embarrassed by our government

It's like seating nightmare relatives at a wedding which one guest would rather was a funeral.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It seems indeed to be a funeral - the funeral of democracy, that is.

:what?

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From NPR, a description of a military parade I'd be happy to support. No chance that such an event will occur, however. It would not meed the psychological needs that large missiles and jackboots do, of the originator of the notion.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From NPR, a description of a military parade I'd be happy to support. No chance that such an event will occur, however. It would not meed the psychological needs that large missiles and jackboots do, of the originator of the notion.

Really, Brenda? A parade whose intention is to intimidate its country's own populace?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well yes, but the link indicates that all those probably ignored by the Mad Emperor, and His Equally-Mad Minions and Myrmidons, should legitimately be included in such a 'parade'.

Dear Lord....is there no end yet in sight to this man's insanity?

IJ
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From NPR, a description of a military parade I'd be happy to support. No chance that such an event will occur, however. It would not meed the psychological needs that large missiles and jackboots do, of the originator of the notion.

Really, Brenda? A parade whose intention is to intimidate its country's own populace?
I just read the piece. Its description of the Bastille Day parade didn't strike me as intimidating the French populace. Its multinational dimension struck me as reassuring. Not in all cases or always, but France, at its best, has been an inspiration for the aspirations of people around the world. Did I miss something?

[Of course, I don't expect that kind of display from Trump.]

[ 10. February 2018, 17:55: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Other news.

A significant development. Rachel Brand was the heir-apparent in overseeing the special prosecutor, if Trump fired Rosenstein. It's not clear whether she went for the money, or ran for cover!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Its description of the Bastille Day parade didn't strike me as intimidating the French populace.

[Paranoid]
Member of the French populace here. I have never, ever, heard of the Bastille Day parade being seen as intimidating by anyone.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Me neither. IME it's seen as an entertaining spectacle for those who can be bothered to get up on a public holiday for it. (I've never been - I always choose the sleep-in.)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
From NPR, a description of a military parade I'd be happy to support. No chance that such an event will occur, however. It would not meed the psychological needs that large missiles and jackboots do, of the originator of the notion.

Really, Brenda? A parade whose intention is to intimidate its country's own populace?
I just read the piece. Its description of the Bastille Day parade didn't strike me as intimidating the French populace. Its multinational dimension struck me as reassuring. Not in all cases or always, but France, at its best, has been an inspiration for the aspirations of people around the world. Did I miss something?

[Of course, I don't expect that kind of display from Trump.]

I assumed Brenda was referring to the author's imagined parade, described in the last two paragraphs of the article:


quote:
If the president really wants to see a U.S. military parade roll down Pennsylvania Avenue, why not leave missiles in their silos and tanks on their staging grounds, and ask veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Vietnam and Korea, to march? Some might limp. Some will be in wheelchairs. But they will finally receive some of the acclaim and thanks they deserve. Their march might remind us of the costs we ask them to bear, during and after a conflict.

Some other marchers might include the soldiers who protect the United States from attack with codes and keystrokes; support personnel — mechanics, drivers, clerks, cooks — who make up most of the armed forces, but are rarely glorified in films; or nurses, doctors, psychiatrists and medics who try to put healing hands on the wounds of war. All of those brave service members would make an inspiring parade.


 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Early in the article, the author makes the point that one of the purposes of tinpot dictators' military parades is to remind the populace of just how powerful said dictators are, discouraging opposition from unhappy citizens.

Given the nature of our current, er, leadership and its apparent notions of "treason," I assume that's what 44.2 would be planning. That is, to the extent that anything this administration gets up to could be said to have been "planned."
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Early in the article, the author makes the point that one of the purposes of tinpot dictators' military parades is to remind the populace of just how powerful said dictators are, discouraging opposition from unhappy citizens.

Given the nature of our current, er, leadership and its apparent notions of "treason," I assume that's what 44.2 would be planning. That is, to the extent that anything this administration gets up to could be said to have been "planned."

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt about what Trump has in mind. My concern was that you appeared to be misinterpreting what Brenda was advocating when she said "this" is a parade she could support.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, that's what I meant. But it would be terribly dull for the TV cameras. My husband would be in it, the computer security researcher for the federal contractor. My daughter, the Afghan war vet, and her husband who has done three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. My son, the security clearance researcher. Li'l Donny doesn't want to see them. He needs phallic substitutes.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Boring or not, it's a parade if be much more likely to show up and brave the crowds for, and stand and cheer wildly for, than the self congratulatory "mines bigger" alpha male posturing one Trump has in mind
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just when you think things couldn't get worse ....

Trump invokes due process. The irony, the blindness, is breathtaking.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I think T wanders in a fog, much of the time. (One of his various modes of functioning.) The comments this time are probably also informed by allegations against *him*. He has to be perfect, so he can't have done anything wrong, so other guys accused of the same things probably haven't done anything wrong, either.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a free click and explains how an exorcism has cleared out all the demons at the White House. Which were of course Obama's fault.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Load of credulous nutters.

[ 11. February 2018, 16:37: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
What about the ones which may have found human (or at least sort of human) lodgings?

I'm not much into demonology but isn't the NT picture one of demons in people (and pigs), not buildings and objects?
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Was it done with bell book and candle? It's not valid is it without those appurtences? [Two face]

Feeling - well - devilish!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Oh no! Many years ago a friend gave my mother a pair of wooden carvings (heads) from Haiti. Now I'm wondering if they were 'demonic and idolatrous objects,' or if they 'provided a legal ground for demonic spirits.'
[Eek!]

Can I blame the demonic heads for anything that went wrong in my family's life afterwards?

Now I'm wondering what happened to them when Mom sold the house and moved. Where are they now?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Brenda, I think you meant it was the Clintons' fault, what with their obvious occult possession by those evil Haitians....

[Disappointed]

Is there no limit to the fruitloopery surrounding the White House?

IJ
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
That kind of thinking is relatively common in a lot of charismatic/pentecostal circles.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Well, the PG has certainly made it clear what he thinks of Haiti.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
LVER wrote

quote:
IME it's seen as an entertaining spectacle for those who can be bothered to get up on a public holiday for it.
Reading through, this reminded me of an Onion headline that's too good not to derail the thread to share:

quote:
What will you be doing on Martin Luther King day?

62% said - Letting Freedom Ring (in lieu of alarm clock)




[ 11. February 2018, 21:31: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Now I'm wondering what happened to them when Mom sold the house and moved. Where are they now?

They're BEHIND you!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Now I'm wondering what happened to them when Mom sold the house and moved. Where are they now?

They're BEHIND you!
Aaaaauuuggghhh!

[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Apropos of nothing in particular BBC News speculates on what General Grabber The Great might do, and where he might go, in the event of nuclear war.

Please feel free to make additional useful, and edifying, suggestions.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the Atlantic, an analyst argues that the problem with Lyin' Don's crew isn't disorganization. It's, yes, the lying.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I couldn't fail to be moved by this clip of the Obamas.

Partisan politics aside, isn't it incredible that hearing a President and First Lady talk like this is such a hard thing to imagine ever having happened, scarcely a year after it was the norm?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Votive]

How much sensible Americans must miss the sheer charm and grace of these two....

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
My excuse must be that fantasy is my business. But I had the greatest notion yesterday! It was that Obama runs again in 2020. Alas, I fear he is too intelligent to step into the mess once again.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I'm not sure that a president can serve three terms even if they are not consecutive.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
The 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms. The only (wildly unlikely) loophole is that if VP X inherits the job from Pres. Y and less than 2 years are left of Y's term, X would be eligible for 2 terms of his or her own.

Lyndon Johnson might have run for a second full term and thus might have had well over 9 years in office, but he chose not to attempt this.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Even if presidents were allowed non-consecutive additional terms, why on earth would Obama want:

A. to clean up the horrendous mess this administration, aided by Congressional hench-thugs, is making of this republic and the world order (and which may be smoldering in cinders well before we ever get to 2020)?

B. to subject himself, his wife, and their children to even more of the appalling racist abuse they endured while he was in office (and in fact continue to endure as the Loud Proud Orange Sub-Universe keeps spouting about them)?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
From the Post, where the president's budget is, there his heart is also. Hint: it's not anywhere near the people who voted for him.

This is a free click: the farm market stand near me takes a stand. They're not open now (no local vegetables in February) but when they open in the spring I'll have to go down and spend money.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The dog's breakfast which is the White House handling of Rob Porter's clearance and leaving now enters its second week, with Sarah Sanders on at least her third version of who knew what when.

FBI Director Wray provided succinct testimony about the timing of reports to the White House about Rob Porter. Given Porter's senior position, it is not credible that these reports were sent routinely to low level officials in the White House who then just sat on them without either Counsel to the President or Chief of Staff knowing about it.

Sarah Sanders has been hung out to dry.

[ 14. February 2018, 03:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Meh. When the preacher's daughter goes voluntarily to work for the anti-Christ, I think it's fair to say she hung herself out to dry.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Ahhh,

Mike Huckabee was a seminary drop out after only one year in a Baptist seminary. He only pastored 12 years The rest of the time he has been a political hack, well known for his extremist views.

It is no surprise Sarah Huckabee can work for the orange one. She is just as extreme as her father and Trump needs her to please the evangelical crowd.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Oh I don't have much sympathy with Sarah Sanders in general. On this issue, Wray's testimony made it clear that those she was expected to defend publicly had misled her about the exchanges with the FBI. She was forced to resort to the last line of defence. 'I always report faithfully what I'm told it's true'.

Anyway, I'm thinking now that she'll outlast Kelly. If she wants to, that is.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
And in an even more blatant example of being economic with the actuality, what a generous lawyer!
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
I daresay that almost no-one in America knows that the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, will be in Washington next week making an official visit, including a formal reception by Mr Trump, where they will no doubt hail each other as great allies in the fight against ISIS, (not to mention against refugees and the poor).

Unless things change rapidly in Australia, that will leave us with the Bonking Beetroot, Barnyard Joyce, as Acting Prime Minister.

This is a national disgrace, as Barnyard is in many ways like Trump, being much given to lunatic thought bubbles masquerading as policy, and is "Deputy Prime Minister" only because he leads the minority party in the ruling Coalition. In the last week or two he is in deep trouble because he has got one of his staff pregnant and has now left his wife and 4 daughters to live with her - a position that sits rather hypocritically with his very public standing for "Christian values", and the "sanctity of marriage" as part of his opposition to Same-sex marriage. Hence his latest nick-name.

It might have been better for Turnbull to stay at home, and send Barnyard to Washington to meet the Groper in Chief, as they could compare notes on how to move from one wife to a new mistress, while putting her on the public payroll and professing "Christian values". But one fears that the idiotic ideas that they might spawn together could start a new war in the Pacific.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I suppose it is the sheer bare-faced cheek of it that really gets my goat. Completely shameless; believing, not without good cause, that any explanation will do for the loyal support base.

An ex-colleague of Kelly, interviewed on CNN, observed with some sorrow that the officer he knew would never have got up to supporting these ridiculous charades. Thought the Trump White House must be a corrupting environment. Mind you, getting bent out of shape by trying to serve an uncorrectable boss with a very bad temper is not exactly new.

[ 14. February 2018, 09:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And in an even more blatant example of being economic with the actuality, what a generous lawyer!

I think we should all write to this person and ask if we too can have $130,000 for no especial reason.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Oh I don't have much sympathy with Sarah Sanders in general. On this issue, Wray's testimony made it clear that those she was expected to defend publicly had misled her about the exchanges with the FBI. She was forced to resort to the last line of defence. 'I always report faithfully what I'm told it's true'.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a professional liar. It's part of the job description as the official spokeswoman for the Trump White House. (See also Scaramucci, Anthony and Spicer, Sean.) What amazes me is that she's so incredibly bad at it. Wray's testimony before Congress was on the calendar and known in advance. As soon as Sarah Huck came out with "the FBI never gave us the final report on Porter's security clearance background check" it was inevitable that someone in Congress was going to ask Wray about this. Someone who was a competent liar would realize this and come up with something that wouldn't be immediately contradicted in the full media glare of Congressional testimony.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And in an even more blatant example of being economic with the actuality, what a generous lawyer!

I note that Mr. Cohen takes the trouble to specify that he wasn't reimbursed by "the Trump Organization" or "the Trump Campaign", but doesn't say anything about whether he was reimbursed by Donald Trump himself.

Admittedly I'm no expert on this, but couldn't hush money to a former mistress be intended to influence the outcome of the election and hence be a "thing of value"? That might be problematic, since I doubt it was reported to the FEC as an in-kind campaign contribution.

[ 14. February 2018, 14:55: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Oh, she's no C J Cregg!

But 5 will get you 10 that either Counsel to the President or Chief of Staff were pulling the strings on the story.

It's a bit reminiscent of Ron Ziegler. All previous statements are inoperative.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
In the midst of all the debates on immigration, with the PG being against "chain immigration" (among other things): The White House refuses to explain immigration status of First Lady Melania Trump’s parents.

(I especially enjoyed "in 2000, Ms Trump self-sponsored herself for a green card as a model of ‘extraordinary ability...’")
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

(I especially enjoyed "in 2000, Ms Trump self-sponsored herself for a green card as a model of ‘extraordinary ability...’")

[Big Grin]

There are three broad categories through which one may acquire permanent residence in the US - as a family member of an American; on the basis of your employment; or a collection of special-purpose reasons which includes the visa lottery, certain refugees, and so on.

Employment-based visa category EB-1 is the first preference tranche of employment visas. Within that category, demonstrating that you have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics" is the only way of qualifying for a green card without the offer of a permanent job in the US (well, apart from the EB-5 investor category.)

So "extraordinary" is a word that has a specific meaning in an immigration context, and there's a list of specific criteria that you have to satisfy to qualify.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Jared Kushner's eyepopping debts and why they are dangerous to us all. This is, remember, the guy who doesn't have a security clearance but is still reading the Daily Briefing Book and (one must assume) passing on the tidbits to his father-in-law who cannot focus long enough to peruse it. Alas, this is from the Post.

Trump's pbstriction of justice far worse than Nixon's. This is from the Chicago Trib and so is a free click.

And there are too many memes now to link to, suggesting that if they are handing out money to people for not having had sex with Donald Trump then we all should get in line for the freebie. I could certainly use an extra $130K in my life, and I have not, and will never have, sex with him.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
From what I’ve seen, she had an extraordinary ability to model very few articles of clothing at a time.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Because it's Valentine's Day, someone on Facebook has posted [URL= https://www.facebook.com/costa.delsol.77312/posts/736694476533255?pnref=story]political valentines.[/URL]

And this is from the POST but it's a hoot: Democratic parents donate the maximum to their son's opponent. The son is a first-time GOP candidate for office. Bet Easter dinner this year is going to be tense!
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I've had a few clients that I liked very much. Springing for hush money out of the goodness of my heart is not something I would do for even the dearest of them. This is such a B.S. cover story, I don't see how they ever thought it would pass the smell test. (Then again, I've seen plenty of screwy things people have tried, and they probably would have gotten away with them, but for the bankruptcy filing / IRS audit / (in Trump's case) F.E.C. audit.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Jared Kushner's eyepopping debts and why they are dangerous to us all. This is, remember, the guy who doesn't have a security clearance but is still reading the Daily Briefing Book and (one must assume) passing on the tidbits to his father-in-law who cannot focus long enough to peruse it.

Doesn't have a permanent security clearance. He's operating on a temporary clearance like the one Rob Porter has. (Used to have?) The fact that such a high level advisor's security clearance is apparently still hanging fire is just as suspicious in Kushner's case as it was in Porter's. Kushner is probably not a wife beater, but there's got to be something in his background that makes career bureaucrats shy away from putting their signatures on a document saying he can be trusted with state secrets. A large amount of debt is one of the most common red flags in background checks, but Russiamnesia* is also something that can count against a person seeking a security clearance.

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I've had a few clients that I liked very much. Springing for hush money out of the goodness of my heart is not something I would do for even the dearest of them. This is such a B.S. cover story, I don't see how they ever thought it would pass the smell test.

It doesn't have to pass "the smell test", it just has to pass the "cannot be proven to be false beyond a reasonable doubt" test.


--------------------
*A chronic inability to remember meetings or discussions with Russians, particularly (but not exclusively) representatives of the Russian government. Given how common this affliction is among high level Trump associates it's possible this condition is contagious.

[ 14. February 2018, 19:26: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The inimitable Charles Pierce makes a quick tour of all the corruptions ans thefts of the past day or so perpetrated by the kleptograts surrounding Crooked Don. This should be a free click.

Also free from Salon and very powerful, the importance of photographs for this White House.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
I daresay that almost no-one in America knows that the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, will be in Washington next week making an official visit, including a formal reception by Mr Trump, where they will no doubt hail each other as great allies in the fight against ISIS, (not to mention against refugees and the poor).

Unless things change rapidly in Australia, that will leave us with the Bonking Beetroot, Barnyard Joyce, as Acting Prime Minister.


It seems that there's been a change of plans.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Trump blames the other students for the florida shooting:
quote:
So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!
Oh Yes, Mr. Trump, lets outlaw kids who show signs of disturbance when their mother dies. Let's take the badly behaved high-school kids straight from detention to prison. Then lets start a national panic of paranoia to rival the communism fear of the McCarthy era, with everyone reporting every sign of non-conformity to the police and other people getting in trouble for failing to tattle. Anything, anything at all before blaming guns.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You forget the basic rule. It's never Crooked Don's fault. Under any circumstance, any condition, whatever happens, it's always someone else to blame. He is always, forever, the victim and angry about it. The buck -never- stops here.

He plans to address the nation today. I am certain it will be as moving, as cogent, as everything else he says.

The Atlantic has a couple good articles today. This one, on the importance of the president's words, should be read by people who deal with words. The Moses effect -- the ability to plant a stick in the ground and instantly divide the populace to either side -- wow, good analogy!

And,Conor Friedersdorf helpfully calls Lyin' Don out on his inaugural speech promise that all carnage would stop now. "Had Trump had a plan, had he attempted an innovative solution and failed, that would be forgivable—but he never had any viable strategy for keeping his promises." Those who believed him were, as always, suckers.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Trump blames the other students for the florida shooting:
quote:
So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!
Oh Yes, Mr. Trump, lets outlaw kids who show signs of disturbance when their mother dies. Let's take the badly behaved high-school kids straight from detention to prison. Then lets start a national panic of paranoia to rival the communism fear of the McCarthy era, with everyone reporting every sign of non-conformity to the police and other people getting in trouble for failing to tattle. Anything, anything at all before blaming guns.
This.

Remembering Obama's response to Sandy Hook. This is heartbreaking.

It will be.a miracle if the parent of a dead child doesn't end up punching the president in the nose this week. I wonder if the secret service will intervene?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just out of interest, I took a peek at Obama's speech after Sandy Hook.

[Overused] [Tear]

I doubt if Leader Lonald Lump's wafflings will be anything like as measured, gracious, and heartfelt.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sorry to double-post, but the thought occurs - if we send our 'thoughts and prayers' to the Great Orange Wen before he gets punched on the presidential proboscis, do you think they might soften the blow?

[Mad]

Hopefully, not.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is superb: a simple action that every American can take that will absolutely reduce gun violence. To save you a POST click I'll reveal Waldman's one-sentence advice: Don't vote for Republicans. The rest of the column is devoted simply to the overwhelming evidence supporting his thesis. I wish that every citizen could see this.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... To save you a POST click I'll reveal Waldman's one-sentence advice: Don't vote for Republicans....

I've been following that advice since I became eligible to vote in 1972 (the year they lowered the voting age). Hasn't done much good so far...
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Me too Pigwidgeon, but maybe we can start shaming the people who vote Republican a little more and prodding our Democrats more.

From Brenda's link:
quote:
But isn’t the NRA the real problem? No. The NRA is made up of loathsome ghouls, but it’s also an interest group like any other. Doing its bidding is a choice. Whatever power the NRA has flows through elected officials, nearly all of whom are Republicans who have made a choice to ally themselves with the organization.
Today, one of the newscasters, Stephanie Ruhle, had a long list of Republicans next to the huge amount of money the NRA gave to their campaigns. Trump got 21 million.

[ 15. February 2018, 19:20: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I think it's over on the Gun group in Hell that I posted the link to an article that lists all the big recipients of NRA money in Congress. Also, TV host Jimmy Kimmel is posting their 'thoughts and prayers' statements, followed by the dollar amount each congressperson accepted from the NRA. Whited sephulchres, the lot of them.

This grim OpEd from the POST posits that our failure to keep children alive is the sigil of the failure of American democracy.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I would like to see every Congressperson sign a pledge that henceforth they will accept no money from the NRA.

I'd also like to see pigs fly.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I would like to see every Congressperson sign a pledge that henceforth they will accept no money from the NRA.

I'd also like to see pigs fly.

I would like to include the President in that (the refusal of donations, not the flying part), as well as all future candidates for President, Congress, and state legislators and governors.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
And really, it's up to us, Americans. We have to stop listening to the ridiculous fear-hyping claims of the NRA ("Obama is going to come for your guns!") and simply refuse to vote for any pol taking money from them.

I will say I was cheered earlier this week (before the tragedy in Florida) by news that gun manufacturer Remington filed for bankrupcy. This is the manufacturer who made the guns used in Sandy Hook. But apparently that isn't what did them in. No, it was the NRA's own over-hyped fear-mongering: after 8 years of those breathless claims that Obama was going to "take your guns" (despite all evidence to the contrary) the election of Trump gave them no room for fear-hyping, causing gun sales to precipitously drop in the last year.

I know we're supposed to "pray for the peace and prosperity of the city" and I'm sure there's minimum wage workers somewhere who will be hurt by this. But I can't help myself from dancing with glee on their grave and hoping that every other gun manufacturer is similarly driven into the ground by their own sociopathic, greedy, disregard for human life. I don't wish them dead, but I won't cry if they're on the street corner begging for pennies either.

Not my finest Christian moment, but the most honest...
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I'd like to see the NRA declared a terrorist organization and disbanded, but that isn't going to happen.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The NRA is a lobbying and trade association. Where does it get its money? It is not from the tooth fairy. It is given to them: by its members in the form of yearly membership dues, and also by donors like the Russians. Many Americans give them money, and it is this money, millions and millions of dollars, that they use to corrupt congresspersons.

It is possible to imagine legislation that would keep malign foreign actors from funneling money into the NRA. (Not under this administration, of course. Did you see the recent meme? The caption was "Hillary Clinton palling around with a Russian Agent!!" The photograph was from the presidential debates, when she was shaking hands with Lyin' Don.) But the root of the issue is the NRA's membership. Banning them won't help, if enough Americans believe that the solution to all problems is more guns. The battleground is narrow: the human heart and mind.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Actually the NRA ceased getting very much of their funding from member dues long ago. As you noted, they are a lobbying group-- for gun & ammo manufacturers, not gun owners. (Not withstanding possible Russian money laundering). That's a key distinction in the change of tenor in the organization
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
A 17 year old boy from the school cadet force was on the radio this morning arguing that if the security guard had been armed, if there were guns in the school, then the death toll would have been less.
[brick wall] [brick wall] [brick wall]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A 17 year old boy from the school cadet force was on the radio this morning arguing that if the security guard had been armed, if there were guns in the school, then the death toll would have been less.

Not sure about the specifics of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, but having armed guards present already seems to be standard practice in Broward County public schools.

quote:
Schools in the Broward district typically have one or two school resource officers, typically Broward County Sheriff deputies who are armed and always on campus. Schools also employ campus monitors, who patrol the halls with walkie talkies but are not armed, and a security specialist, usually a retired sheriff’s department employee who helps the school plan and maintain its security protocols but is not armed.
Maybe Cadet Shootemup meant that there should be a ratio of armed guards to students similar to what you find in American prisons? I'm sure that won't send any unintended messages or distract from learning. [Roll Eyes]

[ 16. February 2018, 13:52: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, that's what they teach them in the pseudo-military 'cadet force', presumably. Good guys with guns, a-learning how to 'protect'....

Meanwhile, the world looks on, and gapes in wonder at the dystopia that America seems to be sliding towards....

[Disappointed]

Is there now any other country that takes America and its so-called government seriously?

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He is merely following in the footsteps of his doltish elders: FL legislators move to relax background checks for gun purchases. this was =today='s headline.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
There.

Are.

No.

Words.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, that's what they teach them in the pseudo-military 'cadet force', presumably. Good guys with guns, a-learning how to 'protect'....

Meanwhile, the world looks on, and gapes in wonder at the dystopia that America seems to be sliding towards....

[Disappointed]

Is there now any other country that takes America and its so-called government seriously?

IJ

Indeed. The next season of "The Handmaid's Tale" may well be overtaken by events.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't think this is a hoax: but apparently a book is to be released called "The Faith of Donald J Trump - a spiritual biography".

Authors David Brody and Scott Lamb.

One assumes it is a very short book. Or possible The Onion's best ever spoof.

[ 16. February 2018, 14:08: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, that's possibly true, but it'll consist of the title page, and nothing else.

Wasn't there a song which went something like this:

'I'll sing you a song of Spiro Agnew,
and all the great things he has done!'

That was the lot. Silence followed.

IJ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
For masocists, here is the preview on Google books
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For masocists, here is the preview on Google books

Actually, I found this teaser fascinating. It looks like it could be a very insightful analysis of What Went Wrong-- for evangelicals as much as for Trump. The chapter titles alone were intriguing-- each would make a great Ship thread.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Bishop's Finger, I think the rest of the world takes Trump's America very seriously indeed, just like any other deranged teenager running amok with a deadly firearm.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
A fair point, and a thoughtful answer to my somewhat rhetorical question.

Lord, have mercy on us all.

IJ
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Unhealthy Donald proposed a budget only last week which cuts the funding for school safety programs. You have to admit, the man's timing is pinpoint precise.

From this same publication New York Magazine, people did indeed report the Florida shooter, just as Crooked Don suggested yesterday. It did damn all.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So Robert Mueller unsealed another indictment just now. The named parties are thirteen Russian individuals and three Russian organizations. The charges are:


Not all charges apply to all defendants.

So this seems to be laying the groundwork for establishing how the Russians interfered with the 2016 presidential election, which is half of Mueller's remit. The other half is tracking down anyone in the Trump campaign or transition who may have been involved in that. This seems pretty big. At the very least it makes it very difficult to fire Mueller.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Sorry, that last count should be Aggravated Identity Theft. I'm not sure what the aggravating factors are, but it's a legally relevant term of art and I missed the edit window to change it.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So this seems to be laying the groundwork for establishing how the Russians interfered with the 2016 presidential election, which is half of Mueller's remit. The other half is tracking down anyone in the Trump campaign or transition who may have been involved in that. This seems pretty big. At the very least it makes it very difficult to fire Mueller.

Conservative Twitter, on the other hand, is playing up the lack of any reference to collusion in the indictment as total vindication of Trump.

Others are asking when ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS who tweeted about Hilary are going to start getting locked up.

I hate Twitter, but it's always useful when you want to see how someone else can read the same thing you just did and come to a completely different conclusion... [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Speaking of Twitter, this thread from back in October by a law professor and former special counsel outlines the advantages of Mueller indicting a lot of Russians. This was written when it was known Mueller had issued an indictment but we didn't know that it was Gates and Manafort who had been indicted. The logic still seems to hold, though.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A major development.

Looks like the involvement of US nationals may get classified as 'unwitting', but the Trump assertion that stories of Russian interference were part of a hoax has been firmly refuted.

What happens next?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Trump moves into a silent, cloistered monastery in a country with no extradition treaty with the US?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Don't see him doing silence or celibacy. Anyway, he's tweeting 'vindicated'.

I did wonder if the wording was designed to encourage him to accept a request for interview.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
[Projectile] [Projectile]

If you are unaware of that to which I am referring, it's just the latest tweet that tries to appropriate the deaths of children to vindicate himself.

Sick.

AFZ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Pretty sickmaking.

Unfortunately, all too typical.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Trump moves into a silent, cloistered monastery in a country with no extradition treaty with the US?

I'm currently enjoying schadenfreude with respect to Australian Politics, but this is just a wonderful idea GK.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Is Lovely Leader Lump now asserting that the school shooting is the fault of the Russians?

[Eek!]

Vlad The Inhaler won't like that....

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Nope. The FBI, spending too much resource in investigating his alleged crookery, not enough on tracking school shooters. It's all about him, yet again.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is a cogent analysis from the New Yorker: how creating a climate of fear is Crooked Don's deliberate policy. It is the tactic of tyrants.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I just read that Tangerine Tweetolini is now keen on ending federal funding for public libraries and dismantling both the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Enfowment for the Arts. I personally don’t think he gives a shit about any of this, but is simply parroting the desires of the Republican neo -feudalists who are intent on de- educating the nation. [Mad]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
As I recall, that was in his 'budget.' It is fantasy fiction, don't worry about it. Congress already, with great agony, voted on a budget for two years.

Over at the Post Ruth Marcus calls it like it is: dereliction of duty. Sickly Donald is not fulfilling the duties of a president.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Sickly Donald

This is getting as tiresome as Illary, faster.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have been as good as gold. Have I ever mentioned his hair? Never, neither the dye job nor the hair plugs nor the toupee nor the combover. The words Mango and Orange have never passed my lips; not a bit of fatshaming has occurred even though there are ten thousand memes. Only using the denigrations that Crooked Don himself uses, on others. And don't think he hasn't stopped! The tweets are an endless resource. He was blaming Hillary only this morning. What he won't get, ever, is the use of his true name. He is as Voldemort to me. One must therefore use something to refer to him, and why not his own words?

In the meantime, a (free) cartoon about the duties he is not performing. He is clearly not going to defend us against the Russians. Putin must have some heavy-duty levers clamped around his personal organs.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What he won't get, ever, is the use of his true name. He is as Voldemort to me. One must therefore use something to refer to him, and why not his own words?

Because you are sinking to his level. Do you want to sound like romanlion?

Criticisms of Trump - and there is no shortage of material - will be all the more forceful if they are not couched in playground language.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
‘The current Republican administration’ would be an even better synonym, since it would remind everone that he is just the symptom, not the disease.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Criticisms of Trump - and there is no shortage of material - will be all the more forceful if they are not couched in playground language.

Except at this point the criticisms in this thread are mostly serving as therapy rather than discussion.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
In which case they should be in Hell.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
The Current Republican Orange Kleptos? Because that's not fake news they spew, its a crock of shit.

I'm not sure there's been many open complaints about Romanlion's language, Dims etc. I only remember LutheranChk recently. There may well have been covert complaints. Not my business, I guess. If our insults at Trump were themselves drawing complaints and therefore adding to the workload of admins, I'd certainly stop.

I suppose that if we who support reasonable and conservative political centrism don't object to the language of the children of a lesser god, we too can make up humerous anagrams and wordplays to lighten our loads. After all, many many people have died, and not just Americans, since Trump took office. Referring to him as Wings over the Desert when the wind strikes his hair and exposes the mottled pink and white bowling ball of his skull seems a little on the mild side.

At least there's the satisfaction of seeing the preening cock tied to the train tracks that is the inexorable course of the Mueller Investigation, with the findings of complicity and obstruction a nineteenth-century engine and caboose in the distance. Toot toot. See the strutting cock struggle against the inevitable prosecution, will Nunes save him? No. The treasonous cock and his incompetent flock will lie and cheat their way to prison, and our freedom.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Since "trump" is slang in many English-speaking cultures for "wind passed especially noisily from the anus," I prefer "Fartletter-in-Chief." Certainly nothing that comes out of his mouth rises any higher than that.

As for romanlion, I don't engage him. In my mind he doesn't exist.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In which case they should be in Hell.

I'm not claiming that 'is' implies 'ought'.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Since "trump" is slang in many English-speaking cultures for "wind passed especially noisily from the anus," I prefer "Fartletter-in-Chief." Certainly nothing that comes out of his mouth rises any higher than that.


Yes, writing trump without the capital = fart.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
I also prefer to refer to him as "the current occupant of the White House" rather than the President. He usurped the presidency as a result of what in the opinion of many was a fraudulent campaign and a deeply flawed electoral process. Again in the opinion of many, he is completely unqualified to hold the office. He has sullied and denigrated the office by his mere holding it. In my mind the White House is at present domus vacans (Latin for vacant house).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
But it would displease you, I know, for me to refer to him as The Fart. It is not I who calls people (as Elderly Donald did only yesterday) "Li'l Adam" Schiff (the Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee). Words are a weapon, my weapon. And I mirror his back at him so that you are always reminded of his pettiness and toddler invective.

You need not use a POST click on this unless you like, because it's complete and you have heard it all before, but here is an exhaustive summary of all the lies tweeted on Sunday. It goes on for screen after screen. I am pleased that some journalist is laboriously tabulating and keeping track of the flood of untruths; it must be grim and unending work.

Nor do you want to read the dozens of tweets. But that there are so many, flailing out at everybody (including Hillary!), tells the tale. The man is terrified. He knows the FBI is getting close. But he can't defy his Russian handlers, probably for some even more awful reason. Dirty pictures? Nah, Stormy Daniels & co. have that covered. Follow the money, Mr. Mueller...

[ 19. February 2018, 14:58: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:


Nor do you want to read the dozens of tweets. But that there are so many, flailing out at everybody (including Hillary!), tells the tale. The man is terrified. He knows the FBI is getting close. But he can't defy his Russian handlers, probably for some even more awful reason. Dirty pictures? Nah, Stormy Daniels & co. have that covered. Follow the money, Mr. Mueller...

That's my take as well. Photos of him romping with Russian whores? He'd just want copies to send out with his Christmas cards (which will NOT say "happy holidays", good Christian that he is).

No, my money is on evidence of illegal money laundering. Something that could get him some hard prison time.

Although perhaps all Putin needs to keep him in line is simply a list of all the Russians that have come to unfortunate untimely deaths on both Russian and American soil in the last year...

As much as I am sure that Trump is an incompetent (albeit useful from Putin's pot) fool, I am convinced that Putin is a sociopathic genius. And that is truly chilling.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O yes - t is all piss and wind. It's those pulling his strings who are to be feared, and Putin is of the highest calibre of fear-inducing wossname.

A very clever and far-seeing man.

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But it would displease you, I know, for me to refer to him as The Fart.

Not in the least, my dear, not in the least.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But it would displease you, I know, for me to refer to him as The Fart. (...) Words are a weapon, my weapon. And I mirror his back at him so that you are always reminded of his pettiness and toddler invective.

Well I for one don't need you to remind me.

Besides, doesn't it say something somewhere about (s)he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword?

You're not using your writing skills to fight him, you're borrowing his own weapons and in doing so allowing him to take the battle to a petty, pathetic theatre in which he excels and on which the media gorges, and away from common sense.

Name-calling suggests you have nothing better to throw; it's a last resort. If used systematically, as Trump does, it reflects a constant desire to belittle others.

I don't believe Trump needs belittling. He belittles himself plenty, albeit unwittingly. His misdeeds can be called for what they are, but he himself remains a person. As a defence lawyer in a notorious child-killing case here recently said of his client, he "remains a member of the human community".

To forget that is to forget one's own humanity. To deliberately waive it is to reject the role of the very institutions Trump is himself wrecking.

As a member of the human community Trump should certainly be held fully accountable, but at the end of the day, I believe he is ultimately to be pitied, a bit like Gollum. His end will be miserable. On one level I will breathe a sigh of relief, but on another I will try to retain at least a tiny quantum of pity.

Let rip in Hell all you like, that's fine and healthy, but if Purgatory cannot rise above this level, I think Trumpism has scored a victory by debasing the debate and diminishing humanity.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Since "trump" is slang in many English-speaking cultures for "wind passed especially noisily from the anus," I prefer "Fartletter-in-Chief." Certainly nothing that comes out of his mouth rises any higher than that.


Yes, writing trump without the capital = fart.
In the States, at least, "trump" as a verb generally takes its meaning from card games, especially Bridge. The "trump" card is the card that beats all other cards. Obviously something the Trump family would like to think is true of itself.

Today, he urged us to have a "very reflective" President's day. Which is kind of odd- if you have civic reflections on federal holidays, you usually reserve them for Martin Luther King day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and maybe Labor Day, depending on your feelings regarding labor unions. President's day? You usually either scramble to find child care (schools and government offices are closed, most private businesses carry on as usual), fight the crowds at the ski hill, or go out and buy a mattress (Presidents Day sales being how retail business try to get people back to buying stuff after the end of the holidays).
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I believe the connection to gas-passing is from "trump" as in "trumpet": the sound involved.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps President's Day is a good time to send him thoughts and prayers?

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Special offers like this one for example?

[Frown]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the meantime, a (free) cartoon about the duties he is not performing. He is clearly not going to defend us against the Russians. Putin must have some heavy-duty levers clamped around his personal organs.

David Frum examines some of the implications here.

quote:
CIA Director Mike Pompeo predicted to the BBC at the beginning of 2018 that Russia “will be back” to help its preferred candidates in November 2018. To what extent does President Trump—to what extent do congressional Republicans—look to Russian interference to help their party in the 2018 cycle?

Most observers predict a grim year for the GOP in 2018. But the economy is strong, and selective tax cuts are strategically redistributing money from blue-state professionals to red-state parents. The Republican national committee commands a huge financial advantage over its Democratic counterpart. (Things look more even at the level of the individual candidates.) A little extra help could make a big difference to Republican hopes—and to Trump’s political survival.

Nothing has been done in the past 15 months to prevent that help from flowing. You have to wonder whether the president does not privately welcome that help, as he publicly welcomed help from WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016.

So far no one in the Republican leadership, neither Trump nor McConnell nor Ryan, has acted like Russian interference in American elections is a problem. This makes sense only if they assume that all future interference will benefit the Republican party, which is an interesting assumption to make.

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Today, he urged us to have a "very reflective" President's day. Which is kind of odd- if you have civic reflections on federal holidays, you usually reserve them for Martin Luther King day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and maybe Labor Day, depending on your feelings regarding labor unions. President's day? You usually either scramble to find child care (schools and government offices are closed, most private businesses carry on as usual), fight the crowds at the ski hill, or go out and buy a mattress (Presidents Day sales being how retail business try to get people back to buying stuff after the end of the holidays).

I hear golf is popular, at least if you're in Florida or somewhere else warm. I'm guessing that the official statement that Trump would avoid hitting the links this weekend out of respect for the victims of the recent school shooting isn't technically a lie if you point out that Presidents Day is a Monday.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
For you, Eutychus, anything. I am famously pliable, of the sweetest and most clement nature, dwelling by the Springs of Dove. I will resort only to analogy, inference, and allusion; it will be upon the reader to figure it out. There's a lot of fantasy and horror fiction out there! You will know who I mean, when I speak of Voldemort, eh? Or He Who Shall Not Be Named. Or the Stench that Rose from Pennsylvania Avenue...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, writing trump without the capital = fart.

And with the capital = Fart.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Apparently "one White House official" is able to see the silver lining in any apparently bad situation.

quote:
“For everyone, it was a distraction or a reprieve,” said one White House official, speaking anonymously to reflect internal conversations. “A lot of people here felt like it was a reprieve from seven or eight days of just getting pummeled.”

The official likened the brief political calm to the aftermath of the October 2017 gun massacre in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and hundreds more injured. That tragedy united White House aides and the country in their shared mourning for the victims and their families.

“But as we all know, sadly, when the coverage dies down a little bit, we’ll be back through the chaos,” the official said.

Yes, that's what's sad about school shootings, the fact that it only temporarily distracts the press from asking you about inappropriate security clearances, Russian election interference, or just the general corruption and incompetence that seems an everyday thing with this administration. What a ghoul!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
In the States, at least, "trump" as a verb generally takes its meaning from card games, especially Bridge. The "trump" card is the card that beats all other cards. Obviously something the Trump family would like to think is true of itself.

He probably thinks it was named after him. (Please don't confuse him with facts such as that the word was around long before he was born.)
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I've just bumped this dormant Hell thread.

In view of recent exchanges, let's try something. If what you want to do is rant, and in the process use rude nicknames for Trump, then use the freedoms of Hell to be as ranty as you like.

If you want to discuss seriously any of the social and political implications of the words and actions of Trump and his administration, then this is the thread for you.

Let's try this out. It's more in keeping with the normal uses of Hell for ranting and Purgatory for serious discussion. I'm sure the boundary will get a little porous!

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Croesos

Reminds me of the fate of Jo Moore.

It's the sort of thing harrassed political advisors say, but preferably not in the hearing of members of the media. The White House must be a bizarre working environment.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Apparently "one White House official" is able to see the silver lining in any apparently bad situation.

quote:
“For everyone, it was a distraction or a reprieve,” said one White House official, speaking anonymously to reflect internal conversations. “A lot of people here felt like it was a reprieve from seven or eight days of just getting pummeled.”

The official likened the brief political calm to the aftermath of the October 2017 gun massacre in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and hundreds more injured. That tragedy united White House aides and the country in their shared mourning for the victims and their families.

“But as we all know, sadly, when the coverage dies down a little bit, we’ll be back through the chaos,” the official said.

Yes, that's what's sad about school shootings, the fact that it only temporarily distracts the press from asking you about inappropriate security clearances, Russian election interference, or just the general corruption and incompetence that seems an everyday thing with this administration. What a ghoul!
And you clearly see the logical follow on to this. When the heat gets too hot, what if there is no tragedy to distract the nation? Engineer one, of course. Declare a war. Send in the troops. Have people executed. It worked once, why not again?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's the sort of thing harrassed political advisors say, but preferably not in the hearing of members of the media. The White House must be a bizarre working environment.

Yeah. I think the attitude is understandable, given that they're trying to survive whatever the media throws at them, and what T throws at them. They were just glad of a break, whatever the cause. But that sentiment should've been kept among themselves.

Watching "The West Wing" can be instructive.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And you clearly see the logical follow on to this. When the heat gets too hot, what if there is no tragedy to distract the nation? Engineer one, of course. Declare a war. Send in the troops. Have people executed. It worked once, why not again?

A real-life "Wag The Dog" (Wikipedia).
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Thatcher was accused of that over The Falklands.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O yes - t is all piss and wind. It's those pulling his strings who are to be feared, and Putin is of the highest calibre of fear-inducing wossname.

A very clever and far-seeing man.

IJ

Manipulating the international profile of someone like Trump would be wee buns to an ex-head of the KGB, now ruler of Russia. Putin must be sacrificing goats every day in thanksgiving to the gods-that-be for the gift that is Trump's presidency.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Watching "The West Wing" can be instructive.

To an extent possibly, but perhaps not in the way you mean.

ISTM from reading and hearing older political operators speak on the topic, that the "West Wing" is less descriptive rather than prescriptive, in the sense that newer operators seem to assume that that is how politics works [it also feeds a fantasy where opponents are all reasonable, and that ultimately you can win by superior arguments because things like facts and avoiding hypocrisy matters]
 
Posted by JLB (# 10670) on :
 
In my Twitter feed I've had a link to a crowdfunding site for a boy injured in the Florida shooting. Is there really no state funding even in this situation? Are the people of the country not ashamed?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh yes -- didn't you know? If you are one of these victims, you had better have health insurance. Or, in the case of students, your parents had better have it, gold plated and top notch. Because the medical bills will be titanic, more than you can imagine. Putting out the begging bowl is the first step; the next is selling the house and borrowing from all the family and friends. Do you remember that congressman who was shot on a ball field in Alexandria, VA last year? He has a go-fund me site as well. Even he, probably a millionaire, can't afford the treatments he'll need to walk again.

Even if you didb't take an actual bullet -- if you want grief counseling? Treatment for your PTSD? Psychological help in a few years when the trauma finally crashes your psyche? Tch. Voldemort proposed major cuts in mental health funding only last month. If he has his way you are on your own. You have his thoughts and prayers.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JLB:
In my Twitter feed I've had a link to a crowdfunding site for a boy injured in the Florida shooting. Is there really no state funding even in this situation?

Poorer Americans were supposed to be covered by the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion program. Then John Roberts ineptly re-wrote that part of the bill based on no clear constitutional principle anyone could figure out (remember that the next time some American conservative starts blathering on about "judicial activism") making the Medicaid expansion optional. Florida is one of the states that has opted not to accept free federal money for the health care of its citizens.

Presumably the student is under 19 years old and thus might qualify for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but the income limits for eligibility are kind of strict. The other problem is that CHIP is an opt-in program. You have to wade through a lot of paperwork to enroll your kids.

I don't know the exact details of the student in question, but if I had to guess I'd say it's likely his parents have enough income that he doesn't qualify for CHIP, but too much income to qualify for an ACA subsidy. In other words, the kind of person the ACA's Medicaid expansion is supposed to cover, but doesn't in Florida because of John Roberts and Rick Scott.

quote:
Originally posted by JLB:
Are the people of the country not ashamed?

Some Americans find this shameful. Others, like most Republican politicians, view this as the way things are supposed to be.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JLB:
In my Twitter feed I've had a link to a crowdfunding site for a boy injured in the Florida shooting. Is there really no state funding even in this situation? Are the people of the country not ashamed?

Ashamed that there is a mechanism in place and people willing to donate that has already raised millions of dollars? That there will be more money provided to the victims and their families than the wildest bernie statist fantasy could ever provide?

Why would they be?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Yes, us Americans, unlike you dirty, commie Europeans, believe strongly in Freedom!!! As exemplified in our right to die in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where guns are freely passed out like candy but health care is a rare commodity available only to the highest bidder-- cuz government regulation makes the baby Jesus cry. Freedom, baby!
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Anselmina said:
quote:
Manipulating the international profile of someone like Trump would be wee buns to an ex-head of the KGB, now ruler of Russia. Putin must be sacrificing goats every day in thanksgiving to the gods-that-be for the gift that is Trump's presidency.
Hmm. Isn't Mr. Putin a Good Orthodox Christian? Perhaps (but hopefully not) in the same way that t is a Good Evangelical Christian?

Goat-sacrificing?

Is Outrage!

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
BTW, I think the alternative reality in which romanlion appears to live deserves our Thoughts and Prayers.

Enjoy.

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by JLB:
In my Twitter feed I've had a link to a crowdfunding site for a boy injured in the Florida shooting. Is there really no state funding even in this situation? Are the people of the country not ashamed?

Ashamed that there is a mechanism in place and people willing to donate that has already raised millions of dollars? That there will be more money provided to the victims and their families than the wildest bernie statist fantasy could ever provide?

Why would they be?

When health care is funded thru GoFundMe pages, then your right to live is determined by how winsome your appeal is. If you're able to write a snappy, witty appeal letter-- or post a picture of an adorable toddler whose life is imperiled-- you might get thousands. If you're an average Joe with some boring-but-common disease, perhaps even one that is often (but not always) associated with bad behaviors-- say lung cancer or type 2 diabetes-- yeah, good luck, you're on your own.

There are also conditions that are beyond the reaches of even GoFundMe. My infant granddaughter needed 2 open heart surgeries in her first year of life (and will need one more). The bill for just her first month in the hospital was nearly $1 mill. Even though she's a really cute kid with an appealing story and "deserving" parents, I doubt we'd raise that on GoFundMe-- and certainly not the $3 mill. plus needed for all 3 surgeries. Even the private insurers won't touch her condition. Which is why the hospital advised my daughter to quit her good job with good benefits to go on Medicare. Without CHIP my granddaughter would have died.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
[Eek!]

For all its faults and failings (mostly due to underfunding and bl**dy Tory interference), our NHS here in Ukland really is something for which to be thankful to God (and that amazing post-WW2 Labour government*).

*Clement Attlee's** administration, which probably achieved more for the general benefit of the population of this country at large than any other government, before or since. YMMV, of course!

**when asked if he was an agnostic, Attlee is reputed to have replied 'I don't know...'

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Fantasy.

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Ashamed that there is a mechanism in place and people willing to donate that has already raised millions of dollars? That there will be more money provided to the victims and their families than the wildest bernie statist fantasy could ever provide?

Reality.

quote:
With the rising popularity of high-deductible health plans, a number of patients have trouble paying their medical expenses. This struggle may lead them to set up a crowdfunding campaign such as GoFundMe. But these campaigns are often unsuccessful at achieving their financial target, according to a study published in the journal Social Science & Medicine.

For the study, researchers from the University of Washington Bothell examined 200 GoFundMe campaigns set up last year.

They found most of the campaigns (90 percent) only garnered 40 percent of their financial target on average, according to a news release. A smaller number of campaigns (10 percent) raised less than $100, the release states.

The study also found a large portion of campaigns occurred in states opting out of the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Specifically, 54 percent of the campaigns studied came from nonexpansion states, according to the release.

The study also seems to verify cliffdweller's point about the system being geared more towards sympathetic and tech-savvy patients rather than based on medical necessity.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The libertarian argument is that those parents should have foreseen this. They should have saved the, oh, $4 million that those children shall need for the hospital bills. If they lacked the forethought to do that (we shall put aside the problem that they may not have ever had the -income- to do that) then it's not anyone else's problem. The argument that this is precisely what insurance is for -- to meed unforeseen needs that no one could ever save for -- somehow has no impact. The notion of compulsory health insurance is repugnant; I have friends who argue that even compulsory automobile insurance is vile.

Don't ever give up your NHS, British cousins. Don't EVER go to the American system. Do not let morons convince you we are doing it better. Please.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Meanwhile, the Fartletter-in-Chief has endorsed Mitt Romney is his bid to be elected a senator from Utah.

How long ago was it that the F-i-C called Romney "one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics"?

Romney has thanked the F-i-C for his endorsement. How long ago was it that he called him a "fraud", among other things?

The poet says that to err is human, to forgive divine. Methinks here that to forgive is to err.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Mitt Romney, 2016:

quote:
If Trump had said 4 years ago the things he says today about the KKK, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled, I would NOT have accepted his endorsement
Mitt Romney, 2018:

quote:
Thank you Mr. President for the support. I hope that over the course of the campaign I also earn the support and endorsement of the people of Utah.
Though for whatever reason the idea of Mitt Romney as a man of principle who will stand up to Trump is a bizarrely durable one, even on the Ship.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He's as twisty as a corkscrew. But I still would be happier with him than the Nameless.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, by this time next year, the once-great America will find itself occupied, and divided up, between Russia (on the east coast), China (on the west coast), and North Korea (somewhere between the two).

This has been Revealed to me by the Lord in a Dream.

I'll get my coat, and my Pills, on the way out.

IJ
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I don’t understand Romney’s deference given that, from what I have read, many Utahans intensely dislike Trump ( although not enough to ever switch parties). Romney could have been far less fawning and still get all the support he needs to win. Is this all theater — like a sweet Southern lady murmuring, “ Bless your heart,” when everyone, including the recipient of the blessing, knows she actually means, “ Fuck you,” or are moderate Republicans really this afraid of 45 and his pitchfork-wielding minions?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I don’t understand Romney’s deference given that, from what I have read, many Utahans intensely dislike Trump (although not enough to ever switch parties).

Most Utahns dislike Trump personally, but they still approve of his job as president by 48% while 47% disapprove. That's above Trump's national average of 38% approval.

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Is this all theater — like a sweet Southern lady murmuring, “Bless your heart,” when everyone, including the recipient of the blessing, knows she actually means, “Fuck you,” or are moderate Republicans really this afraid of 45 and his pitchfork-wielding minions?

Among self-identified Republicans Trump has an approval of 80%. Compare that with the approval ratings of Congress, which are typically in the 20s or 30s, and you can see why even potential future Senators might be wary of taking too strong a stand against someone Republican voters like better than them.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
I could possibly see this as a kind of "everybody be cool" move on the part of Trump and Romney. Romney should win the general election easily. Like Jeff Flake, he may be a pain in Trump's rear, but he's still going to vote the party line. So this endorsement heads off any speculation about a primary fight, and the possibility that you end up with Utah's version of Roy Moore pulling the primary upset. You quickly avoid a possible Alabama situation, and no one need ever speak of it again.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think this is a hoax: but apparently a book is to be released called "The Faith of Donald J Trump - a spiritual biography".

Authors David Brody and Scott Lamb.

One assumes it is a very short book. Or possible The Onion's best ever spoof.

I came across this review of the book in question, which you might find instructive.

quote:
But the book is misnamed. It should have been titled Our Faith in Donald J. Trump. From beginning to end, the question of what, precisely, is going on in Trump’s mind and soul — the $64,000 question, one would think, in a “spiritual biography” — can only be answered by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, there’s this disclaimer in the introduction:

quote:
One of the most often asked queries [from the authors’ friends] went something like this: “Is Trump a Christian?” Within the evangelical context that means: “Is he born again?” or “Is he headed for heaven?” or “Is his name written in the Lamb’s book of life?”

OK, so just up front: We’re not answering that question.

Lord knows Brody and Lamb want to answer that question affirmatively, and let many of the large group of conservative Evangelical advisers filtering in and out of Trump’s entourage testify that he’s gaga for prayer and deeply interested in the Bible, despite the regular evidence that he probably isn’t. But in the end, it’s never quite clear whether Trump is just telling all of these sanctified people what they want to hear and using them for their obvious political value.
A fairly worthwhile review, especially for those disinclined to buy the book, or even check it out of their local library.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He's as twisty as a corkscrew. But I still would be happier with him than the Nameless.

Yes. Perhaps the GOP goal: to lower the bar so much we're grateful for someone like Romney
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think this is a hoax: but apparently a book is to be released called "The Faith of Donald J Trump - a spiritual biography".

Authors David Brody and Scott Lamb.

One assumes it is a very short book. Or possible The Onion's best ever spoof.

I came across this review of the book in question, which you might find instructive.

quote:
But the book is misnamed. It should have been titled Our Faith in Donald J. Trump. From beginning to end, the question of what, precisely, is going on in Trump’s mind and soul — the $64,000 question, one would think, in a “spiritual biography” — can only be answered by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, there’s this disclaimer in the introduction:

quote:
One of the most often asked queries [from the authors’ friends] went something like this: “Is Trump a Christian?” Within the evangelical context that means: “Is he born again?” or “Is he headed for heaven?” or “Is his name written in the Lamb’s book of life?”

OK, so just up front: We’re not answering that question.

Lord knows Brody and Lamb want to answer that question affirmatively, and let many of the large group of conservative Evangelical advisers filtering in and out of Trump’s entourage testify that he’s gaga for prayer and deeply interested in the Bible, despite the regular evidence that he probably isn’t. But in the end, it’s never quite clear whether Trump is just telling all of these sanctified people what they want to hear and using them for their obvious political value.
A fairly worthwhile review, especially for those disinclined to buy the book, or even check it out of their local library.

Well it may not be the $64000 question, but if they can explain what the heck my fellow evangelicals who support him are thinking and/or what hallucinogens are in the coffee, that might be worth $32000. Sure has this lifelong (for now) evangelical baffled
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well it may not be the $64000 question, but if they can explain what the heck my fellow evangelicals who support him are thinking and/or what hallucinogens are in the coffee, that might be worth $32000. Sure has this lifelong (for now) evangelical baffled

I'm not fronting even $32000, but if I were to buy the book, it would be in an attempt to find out.

(Besides, it would sit nicely beside my copy of Fire and Fury).

Did Trump just ban bump stocks, by the way, or is there some weasel wording in there?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Did Trump just ban bump stocks, by the way, or is there some weasel wording in there?

The weasel wording is right at the top.

quote:
Speaking at a White House event on Tuesday, Mr Trump said he had directed the Department of Justice to propose a law to make the accessories illegal.
So he claims he told the DoJ to write something up and pass it along to Congress. Whether or not this actually results in anything or is just a pretense in the hope that everyone forgets about this a week or a month from now (like his promise to release his tax returns if nominated) I'll leave for you to decide.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are also conditions that are beyond the reaches of even GoFundMe. My infant granddaughter needed 2 open heart surgeries in her first year of life (and will need one more). The bill for just her first month in the hospital was nearly $1 mill. Even though she's a really cute kid with an appealing story and "deserving" parents, I doubt we'd raise that on GoFundMe-- and certainly not the $3 mill. plus needed for all 3 surgeries. Even the private insurers won't touch her condition. Which is why the hospital advised my daughter to quit her good job with good benefits to go on Medicare. Without CHIP my granddaughter would have died.

[Votive]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The libertarian argument is that those parents should have foreseen this. They should have saved the, oh, $4 million that those children shall need for the hospital bills. If they lacked the forethought to do that (we shall put aside the problem that they may not have ever had the -income- to do that) then it's not anyone else's problem. The argument that this is precisely what insurance is for -- to meed unforeseen needs that no one could ever save for -- somehow has no impact. The notion of compulsory health insurance is repugnant; I have friends who argue that even compulsory automobile insurance is vile.

Don't ever give up your NHS, British cousins. Don't EVER go to the American system. Do not let morons convince you we are doing it better. Please.

There is no chance of us adopting a US-style healthcare system. When designing scare campaigns on health care, the phrase "US-style healthcare system" is guaranteed to get people screaming "nooooo"

If the conservatives presently in government propose even minor cuts to our universal health care system, the media and health lobby are all over it. Everyone knows that if they go too far they will lose the next election.

As for gun laws, every now and then someone tries to make a new type of gun lawful. I'm pretty sure it has never happened in the twenty odd years since Port Arthur. The public is dead against it, and to liberalise our gun laws, even with our strict licensing and storage requirements would be political suicide.

I have a couple of mates who grew up with guns, hunting with their Dads and stuff. One was diagnosed with bi-polar like me, but he was diagnosed as a young adult. His gun went to his father, and his license went to the bin. The other is still pretty interested in guns, likes going to shooting ranges and is involved in the Gun Lobby's organisations. I support his ownership and use of guns within the confines of the law. But he made the mistake the other day on facebook of attacking an anti-violence organisation that was set up to remember two pre-schoolers who were murdered at Port Arthur in the mid-nineties. Man, he copped it from all sides, and we were his friends. Some of the gifs...

I heard a US Senator claim that nobody would or should think anything of someone on their street owning a semi-automatic weapon. In an Australian context I don't think that would be lawful, but even if it was, I reckon people would react in a similar way to if they heard that someone on their street was a pedophile.

[ 20. February 2018, 23:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
(Please could a kindly Host amend this thread so that it doesn't take up a screen-and-a-half's width?
[Help]

IJ)
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Did Trump just ban bump stocks, by the way, or is there some weasel wording in there?

The weasel wording is right at the top.

quote:
Speaking at a White House event on Tuesday, Mr Trump said he had directed the Department of Justice to propose a law to make the accessories illegal.
So he claims he told the DoJ to write something up and pass it along to Congress. Whether or not this actually results in anything or is just a pretense in the hope that everyone forgets about this a week or a month from now (like his promise to release his tax returns if nominated) I'll leave for you to decide.

For anyone who is unaware, the bump stock issue is completely pointless, like any other accessory ban or restriction.

I can produce the exact same effect with a semi-automatic rifle by hooking my thumb in my belt loop.

But hey, I guess something meaningless is better than nothing at all!
[Snigger]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
simontoad

Busting the scroll lock is an offence you're allowed to get away with once. No more extra long 'nooooo's or equivalent please, otherwise H&A will have your guts for garters.

B62, Purg Host
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Oops! Apologies.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, the Fartletter-in-Chief has endorsed Mitt Romney is his bid to be elected a senator from Utah.

How long ago was it that the F-i-C called Romney "one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics"?

Romney has thanked the F-i-C for his endorsement. How long ago was it that he called him a "fraud", among other things?

The poet says that to err is human, to forgive divine. Methinks here that to forgive is to err.

I don't think forgiveness has anything to do with it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
chris--

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Watching "The West Wing" can be instructive.

To an extent possibly, but perhaps not in the way you mean.

ISTM from reading and hearing older political operators speak on the topic, that the "West Wing" is less descriptive rather than prescriptive, in the sense that newer operators seem to assume that that is how politics works [it also feeds a fantasy where opponents are all reasonable, and that ultimately you can win by superior arguments because things like facts and avoiding hypocrisy matters]

Hmmmm...to me, that doesn't sound like WW at all. Lots of people were unreasonable, all around. Bartlett and his crew pulled political tricks. They put CJ (their Sarah Sanders, but much better) in the position of unknowlingly lying. They often tried to do things honestly and reasonably. But that wasn't always productive. They also did stupid and/or bad things.

There may be some things that are prescriptive, worthy of imitation. But there's also a lot of "don't try this at home".

ETA: Allison Janney, "CJ", wants a reunion show so that CJ can let loose on T. And the producer (?) also wants to do something.

[ 21. February 2018, 04:25: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
For anyone who is unaware, the bump stock issue is completely pointless, like any other accessory ban or restriction.

So why has their price reportedly tripled overnight?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He's as twisty as a corkscrew. But I still would be happier with him than the Nameless.

Yes. Perhaps the GOP goal: to lower the bar so much we're grateful for someone like Romney
If the goal is an eventual President R, then small snag: the first time R ran, he didn't want to do it. His wife pushed him into it. That's per R himself. Not sure about the 2nd time.

I'd rather have R than T, because he seems more functional, and could perhaps be made to compromise on some things. But do we need another person who doesn't really want the job?
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I can produce the exact same effect with a semi-automatic rifle by hooking my thumb in my belt loop.

That sounds like a good way to cause yourself an injury that would in the inaccurate but rather graphic words when we went to the range as cub-scouts, make you eligible for the guides.

In any case forcing a posture like that makes it a lot harder to shoot out a hotel window. And if the only consequence is you lot get to do some literal as well as metaphorical jerking off at the range then everyones a winner.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Anselmina said:
quote:
Manipulating the international profile of someone like Trump would be wee buns to an ex-head of the KGB, now ruler of Russia. Putin must be sacrificing goats every day in thanksgiving to the gods-that-be for the gift that is Trump's presidency.
Hmm. Isn't Mr. Putin a Good Orthodox Christian? Perhaps (but hopefully not) in the same way that t is a Good Evangelical Christian?

Goat-sacrificing?

Is Outrage!

IJ

Well, so long as it's the first he-goat to 'open the womb' as the old version of the Bible would have it!
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
But hey, I guess something meaningless is better than nothing at all!
[Snigger]

That’s what Trump’s going for, for sure. Minimum action to put on the show that he cares. Now let it die in committee and hold it in reserve until the next mass shooting.

Didn’t the NRA briefly support this ban as a cover after Vegas?

My brother is a gun guy. He’s suggested that it people who want restrictions should follow the lead of Southern states in their efforts to all-but ban abortion. If you can’t totally ban something, just make it next to impossible to obtain it, and see how far the political will of the voters will carry you.

If this half-ass measure from the White House is the best a Republican will do, that’s got to be the next step.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Remember that the Lidless Eye has a long and sterling record of promising things that he then never puts any effort into achieving. Walls with Mexico come immediately to mind, but there are many many more, including contractors stiffed for their payments, even porn stars who had to redouble their threats before they could pry out their $130K.

This is a free click, a discussion of the shameless kleptocracy pervading the administration.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
But hey, I guess something meaningless is better than nothing at all!
[Snigger]

That’s what Trump’s going for, for sure. Minimum action to put on the show that he cares. Now let it die in committee and hold it in reserve until the next mass shooting.

Didn’t the NRA briefly support this ban as a cover after Vegas?

My brother is a gun guy. He’s suggested that it people who want restrictions should follow the lead of Southern states in their efforts to all-but ban abortion. If you can’t totally ban something, just make it next to impossible to obtain it, and see how far the political will of the voters will carry you.

If this half-ass measure from the White House is the best a Republican will do, that’s got to be the next step.

And the actual effect of such stupid policy moves will be that by the time such a ban takes effect, there will be more bump stocks in circulation that there are guns to put them on.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Which may well be why the price has risen.

(But I think this tangent belongs in the Guns Hell thread).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I didn't post the NY Times link, but here is a free CNN story about Thomas Friedman's red alert column. It links through to the original piece if you care to go on. If Friedman, a dean of the American commentariat, is alarmed, then we got troubles, right here.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Seems like he's a few Friedman Units late in sounding the alarm.

For those who are interested, Friedman is one of the more syndicated columnists in the country so you don't have to use a NYT click to read him. Here's a copy of the column in question over at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

[ 21. February 2018, 17:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This one is exceptionally demented even for these days: the Stench that arose from Fifth Avenue between 56th and 57th Streets is alleging that Obama never used the Oval Office. Who are you going to believe, him or your own lying eyes beholding eight years worth of photographs? One of which illustrates this piece from New York magazine -- it's a free click.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Says president trump who spends much of his time at his holiday resort [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
In what promises to be an interesting change of the political terrain (assuming it's not just a temporary polling blip) Gallup apparently no longer considers Texas to be a Republican state, listing it as "Competitive" rather than "Leans Republican" or "Strong Republican". For Gallup a "Competitive" state is one where the difference between affiliation with the two major U.S. political parties is five percentage points or less. Gallup estimates Texas to be a 41%/38% R/D state, so still slightly Republican but within the polling margin of error.

Texas seems like a plausible state for the Democrats to flip. The Republican margin of victory in the 2016 presidential election was ~9 percentage points. More relevantly, Texas has one of the lower voter turnout rates. Data on eligible voters is hard to come by, but only 53% voting age citizens in Texas voted in 2016. For comparison the national turnout in 2016 was 61% of the voting age population. And this isn't a new thing. Turnout in Texas was 50% in 2012 and 54% in 2008. An all-out voter registration drive that simply brought those numbers in line with the national average might be sufficient to flip the state long term.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Is there no limit to t's fruitloopery?

Presumably, every one of those photos of Obama in the Oval Office is a Fake, and all those who appear in the photos or videos with him were somehow beguiled or bewitched into visiting a film set, or something...

.....and, no doubt, it's not really Obama in the photos, but an elaborately made-up actor (who is brown, and therefore a Bad Hombre, probably an illegal immigrant, and a Muslim to boot).

Of course, all these people have been paid at least $130000 each to keep quiet about it.

[Killing me]

And you still persist in having this lunatic as your head of state?

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

And you still persist in having this lunatic as your head of state?

"Persist in" is unfair, isn't it? It's something US citizens will enjoy or endure (depending on their persuasion) until 2020 at the earliest, barring impeachment or premature death.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, yes - maybe my language was somewhat immoderate.

[Votive] for those enduring this time of madness and folly.

IJ
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Is there no limit to t's fruitloopery?

[Killing me]

And you still persist in having this lunatic as your head of state?

IJ

Dear Bishop's Digit:

So delighted that "we" and our "persistence" could inspire such mirth. "We" live to amuse. You'll be pleased to know that the antics which are "killing" you -- [Killing me] -- can arguably be said to be killing (as opposed to "killing") some of us, through gun violence, denial of medical care, racial profiling by police, etc. I'm sure that these "fruitloopy" sacrifices we're making add significantly to your hilarity.

Indeed, our dedication to keeping you and others in stitches is the primary reason we have not taken up pitchforks and torches, to say nothing of flintlocks and blunderbusses, against the current regime. Clearly, it's not fear for our own lives which stops us; a number of us are losing those anyway.

While I cannot say for certain who the "you" referenced in your final sentence is/are, rest assured that we -- despite the electoral college results which, with Russian help, put this vulgar, ignorant, kleptocrat into office; despite the obstreperous, corrupt, and non-representational Congress (an additional source of risibility) we're all so tickled by; and despite the rapidly-mounting restrictions on our speech freedoms and our ability to inform ourselves accurately about the real toll this regime is taking on our democracy -- we are in fact actively resisting, enduring, protesting, and decrying, NOT "persisting," in support for this lunatic regime.

Meanwhile, though, feel free to enjoy.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There are actually photographs of the MarALago Cringer sitting in the Oval Office across from President Obama, on either side of the fireplace. It was taken after the election but before the inaugural. I don't know how he explains that. Perhaps he does not remember.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There are actually photographs of the MarALago Cringer sitting in the Oval Office across from President Obama, on either side of the fireplace. It was taken after the election but before the inaugural. I don't know how he explains that. Perhaps he does not remember.

It was obviously Photoshopped, just like all of the other photos of President Obama in the Oval Office when he was really off playing golf in Kenya.
[Biased]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, yes - maybe my language was somewhat immoderate.

[Votive] for those enduring this time of madness and folly.

Immoderate? Ya think? You seemed to have gotten past this kind of comment.
[Roll Eyes]

The votive is appreciated, but...

To other non-American people who share his "And you still persist in having this lunatic as your head of state?" perspective:

As I've said, many times, when someone makes this kind of crack:

Keeping in mind "legal, non-violent, and ethical" (and I might be willing to bend re ethical): what do you think we can and should do, that we haven't tried, that will actually **WORK**?

Don't forget we have a different government, constitution, history, and culture than other countries. And no, a parliament is not the answer here.

ISTM that anyone who looks at a desperately troubled country, and asks residents (in anger or sarcasm) why the country still has troubles and why the leader is still in office should take a long, hard look at their own country's present and past. When was *their* country troubled and messed up? How would they have reacted if outsiders made snarky comments and assumed the problems could just be *fixed*??

Grrrrr.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Pictures now circulating of Trumps note cards for his meeting with kids from the Florida school where the recent shooting occurred.

Someone zoomed in, and took special notice of the note reminding him to say “I hear you” at the end of the meeting.

That’s right, he needs written reminders to show basic empathy.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
At least his staff is earning their (surely too meager) pay. I am certain he did not write those prompt cards himself. Wouldn't it be grand to see them? I wonder if 'no ogling girls' is on any of them. Here BTW is the POST story, complete with blown-up photo Only a few of the points are visible. Reportedly although he did wander off onto a side issue of arming teachers he didn't do anything egregious. One must always be grateful.

[ 22. February 2018, 00:09: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Pictures now circulating of Trumps note cards for his meeting with kids from the Florida school where the recent shooting occurred.

Someone zoomed in, and took special notice of the note reminding him to say “I hear you” at the end of the meeting.

That’s right, he needs written reminders to show basic empathy.

‘I hear you’ code for ‘I heard you but I’m not listening and won’t do anything’ - no empathy.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At least his staff is earning their (surely too meager) pay. I am certain he did not write those prompt cards himself. Wouldn't it be grand to see them? I wonder if 'no ogling girls' is on any of them. Here BTW is the POST story, complete with blown-up photo Only a few of the points are visible. Reportedly although he did wander off onto a side issue of arming teachers he didn't do anything egregious. One must always be grateful.

Card from another angle, less fingering, now uploaded on link above:
quote:
Update: We now have a view of more of the card, for those interested (via AP's Carolyn Kaster)

 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Ok, what I want to know is: why is there the number '45' on his left cuff? Was it photoshopped so that journos know whom we're talking about?

The number seems there as well in the first, blurry WaPo pic. Strange.

But, lo and behold, what do I spy just now with my wee little eye? - It has been noticed before, such as in the infamous Daily Mail, UK. (Note: some images on the newspaper website possibly NSFW; 2-click rule applied via TinyURL preview.)

quote:
[...] President has custom made shirts with '45' embroidered on the cuff
Vanity? Or forgetfulness?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Well, yes - maybe my language was somewhat immoderate.

[Votive] for those enduring this time of madness and folly.

Immoderate? Ya think? You seemed to have gotten past this kind of comment.
[Roll Eyes]

The votive is appreciated, but...

To other non-American people who share his "And you still persist in having this lunatic as your head of state?" perspective:

As I've said, many times, when someone makes this kind of crack:

Keeping in mind "legal, non-violent, and ethical" (and I might be willing to bend re ethical): what do you think we can and should do, that we haven't tried, that will actually **WORK**?

Don't forget we have a different government, constitution, history, and culture than other countries. And no, a parliament is not the answer here.

ISTM that anyone who looks at a desperately troubled country, and asks residents (in anger or sarcasm) why the country still has troubles and why the leader is still in office should take a long, hard look at their own country's present and past. When was *their* country troubled and messed up? How would they have reacted if outsiders made snarky comments and assumed the problems could just be *fixed*??

Grrrrr.

We in the UK are in non position to criticise or mock the current state of the US. our country is currently split from top to bottom by a vainglorious, quixotic attempt to turn the clock back / rebirth of our long-suppressed patriotic spirit (depending on your POV).

Meanwhile our employers are packing their tents and stealing away and our public services are falling apart.

At least Trump is time-limited.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

ISTM that anyone who looks at a desperately troubled country, and asks residents (in anger or sarcasm) why the country still has troubles and why the leader is still in office should take a long

I think the benefit of an outside perspective is usually that it can highlight things those inside the situation have difficulty seeing - less the case in this thread given the political sympathies of most who are posting.

The downside is that solutions thought up by those outside are usually naïve and take no heed of why the situation occurred to start with.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Shirt cuffs embroidered with '45' - why? Can someone tell an ignorant Brit please. Would it be 45 as in 'Colt 45'?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
45th president.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
45th President? [Hell comment deleted]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
4.5 inches the size of his you-know-what.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
To Ohher, Golden Key, and others offended by my earlier puerile comments, I apologise unreservedly.

I shall take more thought and care in future - as you rightly imply, 'Physician, heal thyself'.

IJ
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

ISTM that anyone who looks at a desperately troubled country, and asks residents (in anger or sarcasm) why the country still has troubles and why the leader is still in office should take a long

I think the benefit of an outside perspective is usually that it can highlight things those inside the situation have difficulty seeing - less the case in this thread given the political sympathies of most who are posting..
I don't need an outsider to tell me tha were in deep doggie doo, and neither do most Americans. We know. We know. We're embarrassed. We're terrified. We're helpless and frustrated. So you're not telling us anything we don't already know

But I do find it helpful. When you're being systematically gaslghted it IS helpful to hear from an objective observer, "no, this is not normal, you're not crazy, and this is not OK". It's sorta like being in the Dr Phil show
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
As an American, I wish the whole world would rise up and make it absolutely clear that far from "make America great again," America has fallen into the deepest cesspool that can be dug and is going to stay there so long as do-nothing Congresses and shit-for-morals Presidents continue to be elected. Maybe then, at last, someone will listen and something will get done for the better.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Shirt cuffs embroidered with '45' - why? Can someone tell an ignorant Brit please. Would it be 45 as in 'Colt 45'?

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
45th president.

45th presidency. 44th president, unless you consider Grover Cleveland to be two people.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
4.5 inches the size of his you-know-what.

Dreadful. You come right here and sit by me.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

It has been pointed out by a host, here, that the normal use of Hell is ranting and that of Purgatory is serious discussion, and that a Hell thread is available on this topic.

Nobody expects there to be no overlap at all, but in view of this post and the reaction it generated, plus the ongoing innuendo in the post immediately before this one, this is a warning that persistent posting not in the spirit of serious discussion and contrary to this hostly reminder will attract further hostly attention, and potentially admin attention.

If you want to engage in wordplay, insults, and innuendo to attack and belittle your least favourite politician, do it on the Hell thread. Don't do it here.

If you want to dispute this policy, please visit the Styx.


/hosting

[ 22. February 2018, 15:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
As I said earlier, apologies tendered, and, now, Hostly admonition read and understood.

I think I forgot where I was......

IJ
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Shirt cuffs embroidered with '45' - why? Can someone tell an ignorant Brit please. Would it be 45 as in 'Colt 45'?

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
45th president.

45th presidency. 44th president, unless you consider Grover Cleveland to be two people.

You will note that he also famously restricts the number of twitter accounts he follows to 45.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I guess he might be unwilling to have another go, but do I take it that there is no reason in law why Barack Obama should not try for the Presidency again in due course? He'd still be only about 60, come the next election, no?

(Michelle would doubtless instigate divorce proceedings, though, come to think of it...).

IJ
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
No, he is ineligible. No one may be elected President for more than two terms.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
O, I see. Is that something introduced since President Cleveland's time?

Shame - it's an intriguing prospect. The Return of the King, and the start of a New Age.

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Sorry - should have Googled first. I gather Cleveland served two four-year terms, non-consecutively, so I now understand what Miss Amanda said.

I got rather carried away with a bit of a fantasy, I guess, though I don't doubt a lot of US Shipmates might like to see Barack back in the White House...

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O, I see. Is that something introduced since President Cleveland's time?

Shame - it's an intriguing prospect. The Return of the King, and the start of a New Age.

IJ

The Twenty-Second Amendment. It was pretty much a reaction to Franklin Roosevelt's four consecutive elections to the presidency. Prior to that it had been an unbroken tradition (a "norm", if you will) that no one held the presidency for more than two terms. There were a few attempts to break this precedent prior to FDR, most famously by his distant cousin Theodore who ran as a third party candidate in 1912. If Teddy Roosevelt had succeeded as the Bull Moose candidate it would have been his third term as president, but only his second election to that office. Teddy's first term as president started six months into McKinley's second term upon the assassination of the latter.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Thank you for the clarification.

One only hopes that t's four-year term (should he complete it) is his only term.

IJ
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Blogger David Anderson (who usually blogs about the minutiæ of American health insurance) makes this interesting observation:

quote:
Kids who are entering high school will have their political memories formed by the contrast of Trump and Obama. Just think about that for a while.
An American high school freshman is typically 14 years old at the beginning of the academic year. That would have made this year's freshmen 5 years old when Obama was elected. Anything prior to that is stuff they learned in history class, not their own lived experience.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have hopes of living long enough to vote for one of those high school students from Florida. (Since I won't be living in FL this will mean she will have to be running for national office.)
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Blogger David Anderson (who usually blogs about the minutiæ of American health insurance) makes this interesting observation:

quote:
Kids who are entering high school will have their political memories formed by the contrast of Trump and Obama. Just think about that for a while.
An American high school freshman is typically 14 years old at the beginning of the academic year. That would have made this year's freshmen 5 years old when Obama was elected. Anything prior to that is stuff they learned in history class, not their own lived experience.
But the kid was nine through twelve during Obama's second term- time enough to get some impressions of him.

[ 22. February 2018, 21:39: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
BF--

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
To Ohher, Golden Key, and others offended by my earlier puerile comments, I apologise unreservedly.

I shall take more thought and care in future - as you rightly imply, 'Physician, heal thyself'.

Thank you.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
More indictments came down this afternoon for Manaforte and Gates. Money laundering etc. The charges are related to their activities before they joined the Trump campaign-- but the fact that it has to do with their Ukrainian activities is adding even more shade on a shady situation.

Lord, I hope Mueller has top notch security detail.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Lord, I hope Mueller has top notch security detail.

I'm sure he does. And I'm also sure he has back-up copies of everything in a secure place.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
To Ohher, Golden Key, and others offended by my earlier puerile comments, I apologise unreservedly.

I shall take more thought and care in future - as you rightly imply, 'Physician, heal thyself'.

IJ

Thank you.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Lord, I hope Mueller has top notch security detail.

And bullet-proof clothing, a Taser, and a wearable emergency button.

[Votive]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Lord, I hope Mueller has top notch security detail.

And bullet-proof clothing, a Taser, and a wearable emergency button.

[Votive]

So we hope the same for him as we do the average high school kid then?
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
Good point, although what he really needs is an antidote to polonium-210, reputedly Putin's weapon of choice.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When you're being systematically gaslighted it IS helpful to hear from an objective observer, "no, this is not normal, you're not crazy, and this is not OK". It's sorta like being in the Dr Phil show

Hmmmm.

Hmmmm.

Dr. Phil show. Guests: T and the top levels of his administration, in person. With Dr. Phil turning his trademark amazed outrage, blunt correction, and Texas twang/dialect on full blast.

Any T family issues would be saved for a future episode.
[Two face]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
More indictments came down this afternoon for Manaforte and Gates. Money laundering etc. The charges are related to their activities before they joined the Trump campaign-- but the fact that it has to do with their Ukrainian activities is adding even more shade on a shady situation.

Lord, I hope Mueller has top notch security detail.

It’s all starting to look like an episode from McMafia [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When you're being systematically gaslighted it IS helpful to hear from an objective observer, "no, this is not normal, you're not crazy, and this is not OK". It's sorta like being in the Dr Phil show

Hmmmm.

Hmmmm.

Dr. Phil show. Guests: T and the top levels of his administration, in person. With Dr. Phil turning his trademark amazed outrage, blunt correction, and Texas twang/dialect on full blast.

Any T family issues would be saved for a future episode.
[Two face]

of "Keeping up with the Kardashians". I'm finding it harder and harder to tell the difference.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O, I see. Is that something introduced since President Cleveland's time?

Shame - it's an intriguing prospect. The Return of the King, and the start of a New Age.

IJ

The Republicans changed the rules because they were sick to death of FDR beating them! ISTR there was some coy discussion of changing the rules back when Reagan was in his pomp and then the Iran-Contra thing happened, and that died a death.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
My recollection is that George the Taller had a really weak bladder when he was VP.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Paul Manafort is the target on the way to a bigger target. What does he know about the Trump-Russia connection, and will he turn?

Cherchez l'argent (look for the money). Plus, I guess, the motivation for any obstruction of justice.

Mueller is going to keep on digging. Unless he is stopped.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
There is an opportunity for the president to be -- OMG, am I really typing these words? A force for substantial good in the country. If he does this, I promise you I will start using his name. And that's a major concession! But I think I am safe in making it; even the columnist says this is not a very likely prospect. The 1600 Weathervane is not known for steadiness of purpose or mature focus; I give it one news cycle before he moves on.

[ 23. February 2018, 13:51: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It might depend on the extent to which NRA donations consist of Russian money.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
An Unholy Trinity indeed. There is a certain amount of unravelling going on. No doubt the NRA accounts will reveal any evidence to be found of some kind of money trail.

Curiouser and curiouser ..
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
An achievement like that in this environment would put him right up there in terms of Greatness. He'd be remembered fondly once his sins were a distant memory.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is an opportunity for the president to be -- OMG, am I really typing these words? A force for substantial good in the country. If he does this, I promise you I will start using his name. And that's a major concession! But I think I am safe in making it; even the columnist says this is not a very likely prospect. The 1600 Weathervane is not known for steadiness of purpose or mature focus; I give it one news cycle before he moves on.

What is the article suggesting? I can’t access it, it’s behind a paywall.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It points out that only Nixon could go to China. It will take a foaming-rabid GOP president to enact gun control and force his party to swallow it. The doors of history open, and who is standing there? Could it be a great president? If it is then we will know that not only does God look out for this country, She has a great sense of humor.

And I must append the tweet of our last great president. “Young people have helped lead all our great movements. How inspiring to see it again in so many smart, fearless students standing up for their right to be safe; marching and organizing to remake the world as it should be,” former president Barack Obama tweeted on Thursday. “We’ve been waiting for you. And we’ve got your backs.”

The line that moves me the most is 'We've been waiting for you.'
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Maybe he will.

On the other hand, it would be far more in character for him to hear about this of Fox and pick a Twitter fight with the “ ungrateful” survivors. I give it 24 hours.
 
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
You're thinking of the wrong president. Brenda quoted Barack Obama; you're thinking of the current usurper.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
You're thinking of the wrong president. Brenda quoted Barack Obama; you're thinking of the current usurper.

Wait, Obama was a "foam raving GOP President"?

(Which is my snarky way of saying that I was responding to paragraph 1 of Brenda's post.)
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
It's now being widely reported that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort created a paper trail, which Mueller and his team were able to use to create the foundation for some fraud charges.

Specifically, he had a real financial statement for one of his companies in PDF form, but needed to edit it to add fake assets to the assets line. So he emailed it to Robert Gates, with a request that he convert the document to Word and send it back, which Gates did. After adding the necessary zeroes, he sent it back to Gates to re-convert to PDF.

I'll be the first to admit that going from PDF to Word isn't always easy. But has this guy never heard of Google?

Real criminal geniuses at work...
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Ach. I hate these things, because they always tempt me into dreaming of the criminal masterpieces I could commit with my superior knowledge of basic computer use... [Two face]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Every time I think we've plumbed the depths of lunacy, we find a new bottom This is not outrageous nor shameful, merely jaw-droppingly stupid. A free click from Vanity Fair, which is doing some sterlng journalism these days.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Brenda, that is indeed stupifyingly stupid. Thank you for the link.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
If a British cabinet minister said something that moronic they could not survive the day. Eggwina Curry anyone? Is this a first at cabinet level in America? This administration seems to have achieved a new low across the board and it hasn't hurt it at all. I feel it's because there is no equivalent of the BBC and its audience. You can't go too low in US politics. The ridicule doesn't work. Thank God it does here.

That we are not as this publican...

[ 24. February 2018, 22:29: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A new day, a new depth. Stupidity in heaps all around! Somehow Michael Steele has gone all this time without looking around the room and noticing all the lily-white faces around him. But, unsatisfied with this, a GOPer actually declares that Steele is the token black man. Didn't you get the memo, pal? The whole point of hypocrisy is -not- to say it out loud.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
More edifying is the now-released Democrat memo to the House Intelligence Committee. Key takeaways include confirmation that Carter Page was mixed up with the Russians while still working for the Trump campaign (contrary to Trump's repeated claims) and that the FBI were investigating the Trump campaign well before the Steele dossier.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Adam Schiff responds to the Trump tweet.

The facts are in Adam Schiff's favour, as a comparison of both memos makes clear. But Trump won the news cycle victory and his support base are likely to accept Trump's scornful rebuttal.

And the news cycle is currently majoring on protection of schools post-Florida. Those of us who are looking at the details were inclined to believe the partisan nature of the Nunes memo anyway.

Another example of Trump making the truth a matter of loyalty; the facts are secondary.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Perfect B62, perfect. The liberal intelligentsia need to actually use intelligence. In all meanings of the term. It's like none of them have read The Righteous Mind.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Somehow Michael Steele has gone all this time without looking around the room and noticing . . . that [he] is the token black man.

That'll larn him to think a black man can hobnob with Republicans. Steele actually appears to be quite intelligent, witty and downright affable, judging from his appearances on Rachel Maddow's program. I'd be delighted to include him in my circle of friends. Republicans' loss. Let's hope he can capitalize on what he has learned.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Regards, the comment about Grover Cleveland upthread: he is the only president who served two non-consecutive terms. He is considered the 22nd and 24 president, with Benjamin Harrison being the 23rd. Think of it as administrations. While other presidents served two or more terms (in the case of FDR) their administration did not change. Cleveland had to name a new administration when he was elected the second time.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is from the POST but is so charming it may well be worth a click to you: the $30 Million Dollar Man says he would have rushed in to save the Parkland FL students from the gunman. Since is is over 70 and borderline obese, perhaps he was hoping to be a human shield? Or perhaps he was secure in the knowledge that wealth protects you from everything.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
One of the reasons I had at least some time for Sarkozy was him doing almost that: here he is when mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine in 1993, negotiating in person with a suicide bomber holding a class of nursery school children hostage - and bringing one out in person.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
America has a long history of Presidential bad-asses stepping in and solving problems in crisis situations. You may remember an episode from the Ford administration where the POTUS single-handedly took on a group of terrorists who had infiltrated Air Force One.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Apparently Air Force One is Trump's favourite Harrison Ford movie.

Does make you wonder about the way Trump separates fantasy and reality in view of his recent statement.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is from the POST but is so charming it may well be worth a click to you: the $30 Million Dollar Man says he would have rushed in to save the Parkland FL students from the gunman.

Yeah, I'm having trouble picturing Cadet Bone Spurs (h/t Senator Duckworth) running towards danger. Anyone remember this 2008 interview with Howard Stern [audio]?

quote:
I was at Mar-a-Lago and we had this incredible ball, the Red Cross Ball, in Palm Beach, Florida. And we had the Marines. And the Marines were there, and it was terrible because all these rich people, they’re there to support the Marines, but they’re really there to get their picture in the Palm Beach Post… so you have all these really rich people, and a man, about 80 years old — very wealthy man, a lot of people didn’t like him — he fell off the stage.

<snip>

And you know what I did? I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away,” said Trump. “I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him… he’s bleeding all over the place. I felt terrible, you know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red. … His wife is screaming — she’s sitting right next to him, and she’s screaming. I was saying “Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!”

People say he's a germaphobe, but he's (allegedly) willing to have unprotected sex with a porn star. I'd classify him as simply "prissy".
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If you can tolerate some profanity, here's a summary of the internet's blistering commentary on the dingbat statement. A free click, and it is not kind. My fave: "This is from a person who doesn't want to visit the United Kingdom because he's afraid to see people PEACEFULLY protesting against him."
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
We could only wish a 70-year-old obese man would run into a building without a gun to face a boy armed with a AR-15.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I suspect this isn't serious, but these days, you never ever know: Is Donald Trump the Anti-Christ? ― 666 Fifth Avenue Mark of the BEAST, which contains among other things, all the ways that anything trumpy likes or is affiliated with adds up to 666.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I suspect this isn't serious, but these days, you never ever know: Is Donald Trump the Anti-Christ? ― 666 Fifth Avenue Mark of the BEAST, which contains among other things, all the ways that anything trumpy likes or is affiliated with adds up to 666.

Probably not serious, but I will just say... the weekend before the election the lectionary handed me 2 These. 2. The parallels were so obvious it was really, really hard not to point them out. Really hard. Had I not been thoroughly and comfortably ensconced in my liberal dream-land* at that point, utterly sure he was headed for a big and humiliating defeat, I probably wouldn't have been able to resist.


*Lord, I do miss that liberal dreamland. (sigh)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Apparently Air Force One is Trump's favourite Harrison Ford movie.

Does make you wonder about the way Trump separates fantasy and reality in view of his recent statement.

I periodically run through the fictional US presidents I'd rather have. HF's version is definitely on the list.

T certainly isn't that president. (Understatement of the century.)

I think T is often messed up about fantasy and reality and whatever is running around in his head. I think he often walks around in a fog, and the only reality is what's in his mind.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re bone spurs on T's feet:

I'm confused as to why people (here and elsewhere) make fun of this. If he didn't really have them, ok.

But it's an actual, painful condition. The Army rejects potential soldiers with flat feet. I'd think people with bone spurs on their feet would be rejected, too. Soldiers, even in training, have to walk, march, and run for miles, wearing heavy packs. Their feet need to be comfortable enough to do that dependably.

[Confused]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
bone spurs . . . it's an actual, painful condition
Easily treated by podiatrists whose fees do not present a burden to persons of the moneyed class.

[ 27. February 2018, 09:23: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I don't believe he had bone spurs, ever. He dodged the draft that's all. I don't particularly have an issue with people dodging the draft, but if they do they should shut up about the war service of others. That gets me steamed about Trump every time.

[ 27. February 2018, 09:46: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re bone spurs on T's feet:

I'm confused as to why people (here and elsewhere) make fun of this. If he didn't really have them, ok.

But it's an actual, painful condition. The Army rejects potential soldiers with flat feet. I'd think people with bone spurs on their feet would be rejected, too. Soldiers, even in training, have to walk, march, and run for miles, wearing heavy packs. Their feet need to be comfortable enough to do that dependably.

[Confused]

simontoad gave a pretty good answer to this. The New York Times gives details:

quote:
Back in 1968, at the age of 22, Donald J. Trump seemed the picture of health.

He stood 6 feet 2 inches with an athletic build; had played football, tennis and squash; and was taking up golf. His medical history was unblemished, aside from a routine appendectomy when he was 10.

But after he graduated from college in the spring of 1968, making him eligible to be drafted and sent to Vietnam, he received a diagnosis that would change his path: bone spurs in his heels.

<snip>

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Mr. Trump said the bone spurs had been “temporary” — a “minor” malady that had not had a meaningful impact on him. He said he had visited a doctor who provided him a letter for draft officials, who granted him the medical exemption. He could not remember the doctor’s name.

“I had a doctor that gave me a letter — a very strong letter on the heels,” Mr. Trump said in the interview.

Asked to provide The Times with a copy of the letter, which he had obtained after his fourth student deferment, Mr. Trump said he would have to look for it. A spokeswoman later did not respond to repeated requests for copies of it.

The Selective Service records that remain in the National Archives — many have been discarded — do not specify what medical condition exempted Mr. Trump from military service.

Mr. Trump has described the condition as heel spurs, which are protrusions caused by calcium built up on the heel bone, treated through stretching, orthotics or sometimes surgery.

Mr. Trump said that he could not recall exactly when he was no longer bothered by the spurs, but that he had not had an operation for the problem.

“Over a period of time, it healed up,” he said.

For the record, Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946. This means he had a draft number of 356 [PDF]. For those who are unfamiliar with the system, each American man of a certain age was given a number from 1 to 366 based on their birthday. The lower your number the more likely you were to get drafted and sent to Vietnam. Given his high number he was virtually immune to being drafted regardless of the condition of his heels.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re bone spurs on T's feet:

I'm confused as to why people (here and elsewhere) make fun of this. If he didn't really have them, ok.

But it's an actual, painful condition. The Army rejects potential soldiers with flat feet. I'd think people with bone spurs on their feet would be rejected, too. Soldiers, even in training, have to walk, march, and run for miles, wearing heavy packs. Their feet need to be comfortable enough to do that dependably.

[Confused]

I, too, have a bone spur condition in my left foot. With correct shoe fitting, I was able to (last May and June) walk 850km across northern Spain, with pack.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]For the record, Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946. This means he had a draft number of 356 [PDF]. For those who are unfamiliar with the system, each American man of a certain age was given a number from 1 to 366 based on their birthday. The lower your number the more likely you were to get drafted and sent to Vietnam. Given his high number he was virtually immune to being drafted regardless of the condition of his heels.

Clarification: he had a draft number of 356 in 1970. A new lottery was held each year (shades of Hunger Games) so last year's 356 could become next years #1. And deferments could take some time to process, so most men would start working on obtaining them long before the lottery was held.

I too would not sneer at anyone who sought a deferment-- as did Bill Clinton and George W and a vast number of young men in the 70s. But I do have a problem with someone who took that route now maligning and denigrating those who did serve, or proffering ridiculous fantasies about how courageously he would act in a life-and-death situation.

[ 27. February 2018, 13:58: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For the record, Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946. This means he had a draft number of 356 [PDF]. For those who are unfamiliar with the system, each American man of a certain age was given a number from 1 to 366 based on their birthday. The lower your number the more likely you were to get drafted and sent to Vietnam. Given his high number he was virtually immune to being drafted regardless of the condition of his heels.

Clarification: he had a draft number of 356 in 1970. A new lottery was held each year (shades of Hunger Games) so last year's 356 could become next years #1.
That's not how it worked. The 1971 draft lottery only applied to men born in 1951 (i.e. not Donald Trump). Once you had a number, that was your number regardless of what subsequent lotteries determined. Of course, by the time of the 1971 lottery Trump would have been outside the age normally drafted.

There was a study a few years back that found a correlation between draft number and political opinion. American men of the Vietnam draft generation with lower draft numbers seem to have a greater tendency towards liberal politics and, most interestingly, not just on questions of war and peace. The correlation held the same for those who were ultimately drafted and those who were not. Trump, with his high draft number and very conservative political views, seems to be a confirming case.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For the record, Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946. This means he had a draft number of 356 [PDF]. For those who are unfamiliar with the system, each American man of a certain age was given a number from 1 to 366 based on their birthday. The lower your number the more likely you were to get drafted and sent to Vietnam. Given his high number he was virtually immune to being drafted regardless of the condition of his heels.

Clarification: he had a draft number of 356 in 1970. A new lottery was held each year (shades of Hunger Games) so last year's 356 could become next years #1.
That's not how it worked. The 1971 draft lottery only applied to men born in 1951 (i.e. not Donald Trump). Once you had a number, that was your number regardless of what subsequent lotteries determined. Of course, by the time of the 1971 lottery Trump would have been outside the age normally drafted.
Ah, thanks for the clarification-- I had remembered incorrectly. Being female and 14 at the time it probably didn't have the same staying power as those who had to suffer through the anxiety of wondering if "your number's up".


quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

There was a study a few years back that found a correlation between draft number and political opinion. American men of the Vietnam draft generation with lower draft numbers seem to have a greater tendency towards liberal politics and, most interestingly, not just on questions of war and peace. The correlation held the same for those who were ultimately drafted and those who were not. Trump, with his high draft number and very conservative political views, seems to be a confirming case.

fascinating!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The Lion of MarALago is of the era and class where excuses were found for rich boys to avoid military service. George W. Bush was another one -- the state national guard was a popular refuge to avoid going overseas, and if you had connections you could easily get a slot where a poor brown kid could not. Another famous chicken hawk is Wayne LaPierre, NRA president -- he got out of Vietnam by claiming mental issues. Guess those haven't gotten better, eh? Men of this type are always ready to yell for others to go and die for their country, or to demand parades with lots of armaments and missiles. Their personal inadequacies have to be compensated for continually with guns and blood. (My son, my daughter, and my son-in-law all are or were Army officers, and so my scorn for these cowards is infinite and unquenchable.)
Over at MSNBC you may view further unkind commentary about Our National Super Hero.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Service in Vietnam is such a strange thing in American politics. Clinton, Bush, and Trump were all criticized for not serving, but they all ultimately won their elections. McCain and Kerry both built their careers off of service in Vietnam, and both lost. Both have also faced accusations of overstating their bravery from political opponents (Kerry more visibly than McCain, but both take their licks).

It's one of those things that people talk about as if it is hugely important, but I have seen no indication that it actually matters to significant numbers of voters when it comes time to cast a ballot.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Brave people do not boast about bravery. And there are many forms of bravery.

President Trump's characterisation of the resource officer as a coward may backfire.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Maybe, but t will still twist the facts to suit his own 'view'. It sounds as if it's the Sheriff who needs investigating, not Mr. Peterson.

IJ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
What the demonising of Scot Peterson demonstrated is the President's complete disregard of due process - except when it suits him of course.

Of course I do not know whether Scot Peterson's explanation will hold up to critical scrutiny. Though it does seem he had at least one witness with him throughout the process, and talked to more than one person.

But there is something remarkably un-Presidential in his wanton disregard of any reputation but his own. Of which this is only one example.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
FWIW, I've got bone spurs. There was an initial very painful period which brought me to the podiatrist's attention, and I ended up with a couple cortisone shots, some exercises and a pair of orthotics in my shoes. 25 years on, I no longer remember the things (which still exist) because the orthotics handle it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But there is something remarkably un-Presidential in his wanton disregard of any reputation but his own. Of which this is only one example.

I keep thinking this, but then I keep reminding myself that it must play really well with his base, and that is all he is aiming for.

It's really hard to get out of our echo-chamber and get into the heads of his supporters.

I'm intending to get The Faith of Donald Trump when I can bring myself to order it, with a view to trying to do so at least as regards evangelicals.

[ 27. February 2018, 18:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

It's really hard to get out of our echo-chamber and get into the heads of his supporters.

Aint that the truth! Too easy to dismiss the base.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You might go over to Amazon and use the 'look inside' feature to scope out the first chunk of it. If it's utterly intolerable then you won't have wasted your money.

From the Post, a magnificently charitable interpretation of the Hair Horror's boast. He wanted to be a good person! That's a positive sign! We have to take them anywhere we can find them.

[ 27. February 2018, 18:35: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You might go over to Amazon and use the 'look inside' feature to scope out the first chunk of it. If it's utterly intolerable then you won't have wasted your money.

See, this is where we part company.

Empathy is about getting inside the heads of people we find utterly intolerable, trying to understand things in their terms and from their perspective, and empathy is the first stage in winning hearts and minds.

It seems to me that in the US a bigger danger than Trump is falling into the trap of treating "the other side" as less than human, and that this, more than anything else, is the ultimate aim of Russian meddling.

Besides, that's what the Greek word for "devil" means:
quote:
"unjustly criticizing to hurt (malign) and condemn to sever a relationship"
[ETA convinced by my own rhetoric, just ordered it]

[ 27. February 2018, 18:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, sorry -- I was thinking purely of the production quality of the book. If it is full of mis-spellings, if it's formatted poorly, if the notion of guttering or bottom margins is unknown, then the work is unreadable however congenial the actual content is. In other words, it may be a fraud and a scam, rammed rapidly onto the market to lure money out of your pocket.
You may see that I have no expectation of quality from anything that has the T-word on it, an instinctive self-protective recoil.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I live, move and have my being in the midst of Teump’s base. Don’t psychoanalyze/romanticize their grievamces overmuch. The idea that they’re all laid- off blue collar workers mourning the loss of good union jobs not requiring a great deal of education is oversold, frankly. The ties that bind that subsection of Trumpists with small town Chamber of Commerce types, senior citizens and other unlikely allies are racism, first and foremost; served with generous sides of xenophobia and a kind of toxic nostalgia for an image of the US that is white, patriarchal and self- consciously pious. It is a vision of America where African Americans are either invisible ( here in flyover country) or segregated and subjugated; where sexual minorities are marginalized to the point of criminalization or hospitalization; where women know their place; where immigrants, if tolerated at all, must instantly assimilate and constantly thank non- immigrants for allowing them to even dip a toe into the national melting pot.

You know that psychological maxim that in a family, the sickest, least functional member of the family becomes the thing around whom the rest of the family must orbit? Trumpists, for a whole variety of psychological reasons, are the people in our country least informed, least comfortable with change, least able to handle ambiguity and paradox, least comfortable interacting with “the other,” least able to cope without an external authority mediating reality for them, least able to articulate their feelings and aspirations and fears in a rational, civil way....and they’ve become this malignant force in the country that draws the rest of us around them in their morbid sentimentality, fearmongering and endless mantra of resentments.

[ 27. February 2018, 19:27: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I get that.

But it sounds like you want to segragate them.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Brilliant, Lutheranchik.

I see no way forward but to ignore them. We've listened to them. That worked out great, didn't it? So, now let's not. Can it be worse than what we've got at present? (No, don't answer that, because tomorrow will prove us wrong.)

One of the Parkland students had a great tweet the other day, pointing out how the denigrators, conspiracy theorist whackos, and gun nuts are utterly alien to the American spirit. He advised them to get over it. The most devastating line was the last and the truest: Because we will outlive you.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm intending to get The Faith of Donald Trump when I can bring myself to order it, with a view to trying to do so at least as regards evangelicals.

If you want the short version, the New York Times has turned over some valuable editorial column inches so author David Brody can plug his book. (An "advertorial"?) It'll only cost you one of your five monthly Times clicks, and we're near the end of the calendar month as it is.

The short version of Brody's explanation is that Trump has learned to tell Evangelicals what they want to hear and is willing to write big checks to Tony Perkins (maybe). He also "has delivered the policy goods", by which Brody means "the courts, pro-life policies, the coming Embassy in Jerusalem and religious liberty issues". Presumably slashing corporate tax rates and opposing immigration (both legal and illegal) were omitted for the sake of brevity. Despite this assessment, Brody objects to characterizing evangelical support for Trump as "transactional".
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'd already gathered most of that from reviews, but I'm set to read the long version as some sort of lenten penance.

Meanwhile I see Kushner has just had his security clearance downgraded - surely an "Oops" moment.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
LutheranChik's post seems wincingly accurate to me, and also explains the attraction of Trump's persona and public behaviour. He has legitimised a toxic outlook, bought into it, fed it, made it respectable.

But the question Eutychus asks is very important. What is the aim of understanding the phenomenon? Simply to defeat it at the ballot box - which would really be good? Or to find ways of rescuing folks from this toxic world view? At least some of them, anyway.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm convinced that the answer to the partisan divide is not, or should not be, a zero-sum game.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I'd quote Jesus. Let the dead bury their dead. Thank God, the younger generation wants to do better.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
That is perhaps a pertinent point. If the majority of the trumpistae are getting on in years, then death will eventually remove them.

One can only hope that they are not succeeded by another generation of that ilk.....

IJ
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re T and heel spurs:

Thanks for all the input. [Smile] My concern was mainly that people (here or elsewhere) didn't seem to be specifying that both a) heel spurs are legit problems, and b) T didn't really have them. It came across to me as "T claimed heel spurs, which don't really exist, so clearly he was lying".

I did a little poking around, and found some relevant info:

"6 Surprising Medical Conditions That’ll Disqualify You From Service" (Task & Purpose).
Mentions flat feet, but not heel spurs.

On various answer sites (quora, etc.), people asked about wearing prescription orthotics in the military. Answerers identifying themselves as military gave varying replies--basically, depends on your recruiter, how desperate the military is, whether you can get a waiver, whether you're willing to serve in a job where it wouldn't be an issue, etc.

"Medical Conditions That May Prevent You From Joining the Military" (Military.com).
This is very detailed. No mention of heel spurs or flat feet--at least, not by those names. But there are lots of foot-related things. (And a bewildering array of issues with genitalia! [Ultra confused] )

FYI.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'd quote Jesus. Let the dead bury their dead. Thank God, the younger generation wants to do better.

Time magazine begs to differ: Young Americans Are Actually Not Becoming More Progressive (the Washington Post has a similar article, but I've preferred to quote an article not behind a paywall).

FYI, the last time I heard the sort of argument you're using invoked was by a Reconstructionist (the "christian" kind) arguing that essentially, the Republic of Gilead would eventually triumph simply because all the gays etc. would, and I quote, be "dying off".

Hoping your side wins because your adversaries get on with dying at the earliest opportunity doesn't really strike me as the way to heal the partisan rifts in the US, or anywhere else for that matter.

[ 28. February 2018, 07:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Youth culture has always been a mixture of narcissism and idealism, and I doubt that will change substantially. And of course Trump is a classic example of a narcissist.

We used to paraphrase a chorus when talking about this issue.

"It's all about me, Jesus
It's all about me, for my glory and my fame
It's not about you, as if I should do things your way".

The thing about Florida is that for many of the young survivors, the horrible experience has generated a greater idealism, a willingness to look critically at wider issues, and the courage to challenge the status quo. I'm hoping these effects will last. Once they realise what a long slog it will be to get any kind of meaningful change, they may become discouraged.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
That is perhaps a pertinent point. If the majority of the trumpistae are getting on in years, then death will eventually remove them.

The problem there is that the generation that's currently about 70 years old also happens to be the generation that were teenagers during the sixties - you know, the decade that's famous for being full of teenagers who espoused peace, free love, flower power and the like.

Either they changed their minds or the highly visible liberal ones were only ever a minority. So who's to say the same things won't also be true of today's crop of teenagers?

Don't rely on demographics to do the job for you. Get out there and win hearts and minds to your cause.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Well, quite.

The trouble is that I was a teenager in the 60s, too, so I'm now on my way out.....

Fair point, though.

IJ
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
That is perhaps a pertinent point. If the majority of the trumpistae are getting on in years, then death will eventually remove them.

The problem there is that the generation that's currently about 70 years old also happens to be the generation that were teenagers during the sixties - you know, the decade that's famous for being full of teenagers who espoused peace, free love, flower power and the like.

Either they changed their minds or the highly visible liberal ones were only ever a minority. So who's to say the same things won't also be true of today's crop of teenagers?

Don't rely on demographics to do the job for you. Get out there and win hearts and minds to your cause.

I'm didn't reach my teens until the 1970's (and let's face it, the "sixties" actually ran from 1965 to 1974) but I'm pretty sure that for every peace-loving would-be hippie there were five squares who never did anything more out-of-line than get drunk a couple of times and go into a cold sweat about whether they or their girl had conclusively Got Into Trouble.

I suppose modern teenagers might be somewhat angrier on the whole, but with fewer jobs and less hope of a home of their own, it's not surprising.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem there is that the generation that's currently about 70 years old also happens to be the generation that were teenagers during the sixties - you know, the decade that's famous for being full of teenagers who espoused peace, free love, flower power and the like.

Either they changed their minds or the highly visible liberal ones were only ever a minority. ...

As Joe Scarborough puts it, even today, you're either with John Wayne or Jane Fonda. No generation is a monolith. Regardless of the relative numbers, generally speaking, the Fondas gravitate to urban areas and the Wayners stay in flyover country. Toss in local control of education and you can pretty much guarantee that young Wayners will be at least - or even more - as insular, ignorant, prejudiced and "conservative" as their parents.

Even if the Wayners are a declining minority, gerrymandering and the Electoral College give them disproportionate political power. So in addition to waiting for them die and changing their hearts and minds, there's an upcoming census and redistricting. If the Democrats miss this boat again, the Republicans will lock up a majority of elected offices with a minority of voters for another 10 years.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Eutychus: I'm not sure where in earth you get the idea that I wish to "segregate" Trumpists. Apart from the sheer silliness of that, there's also the fact that the psychological profile of Trumpists spans all classes and situations.There are Ladies Who Lunch and Izod- clad retirees on the golf course who are Trumpists; farmers; business owners; executive types; people who live in trailer parks, subsisting on the services that their hero is working to end.

I think one of the things that's sent us off the rails, that rational people need to address, is the idea that one idea is as good as another; that my ignorance is as good as so done else's knowledge.This is a dangerous assault on rational thinking, and frankly the more rational among us ( looking sternly at you, too, media) have humored or merely laughed at the bold ignorance and outrageousness of the Trumpists and their allies for far too long.In the US we often have the attitude that it is unfair and undemocratic to point out that someone's ideas are stupid and unworthy of serious discussion...even when they are. I doubt the Founders were as timid about confronting uninformed and irrational thinking.!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ah, the effect of postmodernism on manners. "This is my truth, tell me yours".

I think it is good to challenge bad ideas, irrational thinking. But it's a bit like the cult problem. When folks are trapped in a self-enclosing ideology, breaking through the armour around their delusions may require great skill and a lot of patience.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'd quote Jesus. Let the dead bury their dead. Thank God, the younger generation wants to do better.

Time magazine begs to differ: Young Americans Are Actually Not Becoming More Progressive (the Washington Post has a similar article, but I've preferred to quote an article not behind a paywall).
The 'tell' in these kinds of analysis is who counts as a "Young American" and who doesn't. From the first paragraph:

quote:
For years, it has been said that Republicans have a “young-people problem” — the party, it was assumed, just couldn’t attract young voters. Yet despite predictions it would experience an “historic trouncing” in 2016, among young voters, 37% of young adults voted for Trump (about the same as voted for Mitt Romney in 2012), with Trump winning among white young adults by 48% to 43%.
For whatever reason only white voters seem to count in these kinds of analyses. Even in those terms the data seem to be moving in the wrong direction for the Republican party. According to CNN 51% of white voters age 18-29 cast their ballot for Mitt Romney in 2012, while only 47% of voters that age voted for Donald Trump in 2016. A four percentage point slide among young white voters in a party that is increasingly becoming a white nationalist party would seem to be a problem.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm didn't reach my teens until the 1970's (and let's face it, the "sixties" actually ran from 1965 to 1974) . . .

I'd pigeonhole "The Sixties" as the period of time between November 22, 1963 and August 9, 1974.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think one of the things that's sent us off the rails, that rational people need to address, is the idea that one idea is as good as another; that my ignorance is as good as so done else's knowledge.

I'm with you there, but unfortunately not many of the Democrats I read online seem to be there. The best defence against fake news is to relentlessly and patiently debunk it with rational arguments, not throw insults or mock.

And while not all views may be equally valid, a place has somehow to be found for those holding what we may feel to be unpalatable views. That's society. If the stereotypical Trump voter is dismissed as "white trash" or "old", there's a problem somewhere.

[ETA Croesos, that makes me not born in the Sixties [Waterworks] ]

[ 28. February 2018, 14:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Ah, the effect of postmodernism on manners. "This is my truth, tell me yours".
...

I think it's been around longer than that, at least in the USA, and I think it comes more from the fallacy that if all men are created equal, then everyone's knowledge or opinions are also equal.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I'd quote Jesus. Let the dead bury their dead. Thank God, the younger generation wants to do better.

Time magazine begs to differ: Young Americans Are Actually Not Becoming More Progressive (the Washington Post has a similar article, but I've preferred to quote an article not behind a paywall).
The 'tell' in these kinds of analysis is who counts as a "Young American" and who doesn't. From the first paragraph:

quote:
For years, it has been said that Republicans have a “young-people problem” — the party, it was assumed, just couldn’t attract young voters. Yet despite predictions it would experience an “historic trouncing” in 2016, among young voters, 37% of young adults voted for Trump (about the same as voted for Mitt Romney in 2012), with Trump winning among white young adults by 48% to 43%.
For whatever reason only white voters seem to count in these kinds of analyses. Even in those terms the data seem to be moving in the wrong direction for the Republican party. According to CNN 51% of white voters age 18-29 cast their ballot for Mitt Romney in 2012, while only 47% of voters that age voted for Donald Trump in 2016. A four percentage point slide among young white voters in a party that is increasingly becoming a white nationalist party would seem to be a problem.

The same is true of the oft-touted stats re evangelicals. When you look at the methodology employed, it is always white evangelicals they are counting. And yes, it is disturbing/ upsetting/ dismaying (especially to an evangelical pastor such as myself) that such a shockingly large percentage of white evangelicals support Trump despite all the obvious reasons not to. But it is only white evangelicals. About 1/3 of American evangelicals (and the majority of evangelicals globally) are non-white and, not surprisingly, non-white evangelicals are overwhelmingly not Trumpsters.

Millennials even more so are a plurality-- with more non-whites or biracial young people than white.

All of which helps explain why Trump is able to appeal so much to a segment of white voters who feel like "America" as they understand it is "slipping away" (and why some of us say "good riddance" to that "America"). They really should change those hats to say "MAWA" rather than MAGA.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fascinating turn in the discussion. Quite a lot to say at this point, but I think I'll save it for a little while.

It's about an hour before we cross the Great Divide and I've got a few final duties "over there". A continuation Trump thread has already been set up.

See you later!
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
... and then when you add to the discrepancy among white and non-white voters (both evangelical and millennial) the growing evidence of systemic disenfranchisement of non-white voters, you can see how we ended up with 45.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd pigeonhole "The Sixties" as the period of time between November 22, 1963 and August 9, 1974.

As far as American society, those are good bookends. One could also argue April 30, 1975.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The same is true of the oft-touted stats re evangelicals. When you look at the methodology employed, it is always white evangelicals they are counting. And yes, it is disturbing/ upsetting/ dismaying (especially to an evangelical pastor such as myself) that such a shockingly large percentage of white evangelicals support Trump despite all the obvious reasons not to. But it is only white evangelicals. About 1/3 of American evangelicals (and the majority of evangelicals globally) are non-white and, not surprisingly, non-white evangelicals are overwhelmingly not Trumpsters.

A fairly convincing case can be made that "white evangelicalism" is different theologically from the evangelicalism practiced by non-whites. That "white evangelicals" are not so much "evangelicals who happen to be white" but rather "evangelicals whose whiteness is an important component of their evangelicalness". As such I'd argue that "white evangelicals" and "non-white evangelicals" aren't two different subdivisions of one thing called "evangelicalism" but rather two different things.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I've also seen December 6, 1969 mooted.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The same is true of the oft-touted stats re evangelicals. When you look at the methodology employed, it is always white evangelicals they are counting. And yes, it is disturbing/ upsetting/ dismaying (especially to an evangelical pastor such as myself) that such a shockingly large percentage of white evangelicals support Trump despite all the obvious reasons not to. But it is only white evangelicals. About 1/3 of American evangelicals (and the majority of evangelicals globally) are non-white and, not surprisingly, non-white evangelicals are overwhelmingly not Trumpsters.

A fairly convincing case can be made that "white evangelicalism" is different theologically from the evangelicalism practiced by non-whites. That "white evangelicals" are not so much "evangelicals who happen to be white" but rather "evangelicals whose whiteness is an important component of their evangelicalness". As such I'd argue that "white evangelicals" and "non-white evangelicals" aren't two different subdivisions of one thing called "evangelicalism" but rather two different things.
Yes, although of course there are white evangelicals (I hope to count myself among them) who don't fit in that "white evangelical" camp. Yet another reason why the progressive strain of evangelicalism will need to rebrand with a different name. I'm just heartbroken for Wesley and all those progressive evangelicals who went before us that the Wrong Team got custody of the family name.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0