Thread: Kellyanne Conway Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005651

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I think she deserves her own thread. She is the World's Master Champion at the Straw Man Argument. She was hugely influential in getting Trump elected by rewording every bad thing he did into something lesser and more forgivable. She was the first to chuckle fondly over Trump's lascivious words on the bus and call it "locker room talk."

A few days ago she was everywhere you looked attacking Meryl Streep for her failure to defend the disabled from the four criminals who kidnapped and tortured a disabled man. This was in response to Streep's words at the Golden Globe Awards about how sad it was to have a President elect who mocked disabled people.

I constantly come across clips of her on YouTube, posted by her fans with captions like, "Kellyanne OWNS Joy Behar." The clip will then show Conway doing her usual straw man thing but all Trump's followers hear is a soundbite they can use at the job to defend their man.

Here she is with Anderson Cooper. The poor man is trying to argue logically with someone who has long since eschewed logic as an annoying habit that cramps her style. It is, in once sense, as funny as the old George Burns and Gracie Allen routines, but mostly it's just a tragic indication of the state of the country's mind.
Kellyanne
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
Known around here as Barbie's Granny. She is one of the reasons why I stopped watching American TV news over two months ago. We've become used to influential pathological liars over the least year or so, but there's still something about Conway that liquefies my guts. Why, how, can any human being so degrade herself?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
But it is delightful to watch her depicted on Saturday Night Live.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I have to force myself to watch her. I find it infuriating to watch someone who is lying, and when you look in their eyes, they're saying, Yeah, I'm lying, but you won't say that. So, I'll lie. She's like a superannuated mean girl. I loathe her with a visceral disgust that defies expression.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Why, how, can any human being so degrade herself?

Money. She's not the first and she won't be the last.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
Just after the election I saw an item about her on Facebook that said, "Why isn't anyone congratulating her on being the first woman campaign manager to win a Presidential campaign?" I refrained from posting a comment because all I could think of at the time was "F*CK YOU!"
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I have to force myself to watch her.

No you don't. I'm sure you have an OFF button.
[Razz]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
but there's still something about Conway that liquefies my guts.

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I loathe her with a visceral disgust that defies expression.

I'm so glad it's not just me.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Prior to the election I kind of felt sorry for her, but since then she has spent so much time defending Trump's honor, she has joined the list of politicians whose face I can't even look at.
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I have to force myself to watch her.

No you don't. I'm sure you have an OFF button.
[Razz]

It's my duty to be informed. However trying it is, it is my duty, if for no other reason than to bear witness.

I realise that that was utterly lacking in humour on my part.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
Every Hitler needs their Goebbels; ever power-hungry, glory-seeking Goebbels needs a tyrant to bootlick, kiss ass, and hide behind.

She knows the price, and is willing to pay it. Feed his narcissism, and she's in the White House. Simple as that.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Kevin Drum wonders What Happened to Kellyanne Conway?

quote:
Has anyone written a definitive profile of Kellyanne Conway? I seem to vaguely recall seeing her on cable news over the years, and she always seemed pretty normal. Conservative, of course, but not crazy or especially mendacious.

Not anymore, though. She goes on TV and routinely lies, tosses out endless chum, makes groundless allegations, and just generally does everything she can to mislead the audience and attack all of her enemies, real and imagined. In other words, she's just like Donald Trump.

<snip>

Does Trump train people to "act like Trump"? Does it just happen naturally if you hang around the guy for a while? Will we soon have an entire administration full of mini-Trumps? It's a scary prospect. In the meantime, though, I'll settle for the straight dope on Kellyanne Conway. What's her deal?

I can't remember having encountered her before the Trump campaign (though I might have and just not remember it if she was a normal-sounding as Drum indicates) so I can't verify anything about before-Kellyanne. Scary if true, though.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:


She knows the price, and is willing to pay it. Feed his narcissism, and she's in the White House. Simple as that.

She and Pence are both "TV pretty," both ambitious, both willing to relentlessly stick to talking points, especially when the talking points have nothing to do with the question.

Perhaps we should set them up on a date..

sabine

[ 16. January 2017, 15:23: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
She and Pence are both "TV pretty,"...

Maybe Pence, but I think Kellyanne is very haggard looking. When she smiles after being asked a question that reflects negatively on Trump, her eyes are hard, and her smile is more a grimace.

I really feel she has thrown women everywhere under the bus for thirty pieces of silver.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A FB friend of mine, one James Gaynor, was startled to learn that they were pushing him to be poet laureate. It seems that a poem of his is a favorite of Mr. Kellyann (don't know his actual name) and so his name was thrust forward. In return for reading aloud at the inaugural they actually put his name up for ambassador to Tuvalu. (It's an island, in the south Pacific.) He again declined. We badgered him repeatedly -- is this a joke? Borowitz? The Onion? But apparently it is plain fact.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:
I really feel she has thrown women everywhere under the bus for thirty pieces of silver.

The question is: does she, in any crevice of her mind, recognize that fact.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...is this a joke? Borowitz? The Onion? But apparently it is plain fact.

This kind of painful questioning of reality, quizzically queasy about how things could be so, is bound to be a frequent aspect of life for a few years.
 
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :
 
I feel exactly the same way about Kellyann and other Trumpeteers as I do about the bloody-minded Brexiteers and the filthy firebugs now deliberately torching the dry Australian countryside.

But I am glad all we have to deal with here are the firebugs. At least we can happily prosecute them for what they are doing to our country. Wouldn't swap you for anything.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Kevin Drum wonders What Happened to Kellyanne Conway?

[QUOTE] [qb]She goes on TV and routinely lies, tosses out endless chum, makes groundless allegations, and just generally does everything she can to mislead the audience and attack all of her enemies, real and imagined. In other words, she's just like Donald Trump.

The thing about Kellyanne is, she talks a mile a minute. And (like her boss, only a bit more coherent) and, until someone cuts her off, she'll just keep on talking and going off onto tangents. She has been clever, so far, in going off into Tu Quogue and Straw man arguments to avoid answering direct questions. Fortunately, the media have begun to figure this out, and are starting to cut her off and push back.

Kellyanne was useful to DJT during the campaign, and for a short while, she seemed to be the only person he'd listen to. (In an interview, she described how she handled him, and it sounded just like a mother of petulant children. She's a mother of three, I believe.) At some point she will cease to be useful to him. Reince Priebus, head of the GOP, os now on the White House payroll and completely in thrall to his new master. I suspect Conway's days are numbered, especially if all those talk show hosts get better at Calling her on her bullshit.

[ 18. January 2017, 05:19: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:
I really feel she has thrown women everywhere under the bus for thirty pieces of silver.

The question is: does she, in any crevice of her mind, recognize that fact.
Another question; how many women don't understand that they have been thrown?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The question is: does she, in any crevice of her mind, recognize that fact.

Every inch of the way to the bank.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
I have long had an allegorical desert island in international waters where I abandon political maniacs and their pundits. It's where they go to lacerate one another. The events of 2016 have meant that I am having to upgrade the island in the same way China is the Spratlys just to make space for them all. But I can promise you, Conway with her ever so fitting name will have her place there.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The problem with the island idea is they could get back.

A space ship programmed to head to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11 would surely be a better place? I mean, it'd never get there, but just ensure it's in freefall with no propulsion method of its own and it's gone for ever.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I don't know Karl. After the bad guys in "Superman," were put into the phantom zone, we didn't think we would be seeing them again, either.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I seem to recall that Judge Death managed to get back from the inter-dimensional void as well.

You can but try.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:
Another question; how many women don't understand that they have been thrown?

Considering that come the end of this day the US will have sworn in President Trump, voted in by male and female, it would seem a significant number of American women don't believe they have been thrown under a bus but granted a future they feel happy with.

HC was labouring under the misconception that a vocal minority spoke for, and represented the entire female population of America and furthermore, particularly after pussygate, she was assured of their vote. Not so.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know Karl. After the bad guys in "Superman," were put into the phantom zone, we didn't think we would be seeing them again, either.

You mean the 1970s version with Brando as Superman's dad? I kinda figured we'd be seeing them again, since their enzonement happened at the beginning of the film, so it must play some role in the story.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:
Another question; how many women don't understand that they have been thrown?

Considering that come the end of this day the US will have sworn in President Trump, voted in by male and female, it would seem a significant number of American women don't believe they have been thrown under a bus but granted a future they feel happy with.

HC was labouring under the misconception that a vocal minority spoke for, and represented the entire female population of America and furthermore, particularly after pussygate, she was assured of their vote. Not so.

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAMuAAAAJDMwZTE2ODQzLWMxODgtNGNkMy04MGY4LTdlYjc3M2RiYjA0Ng.jpg
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

HC was labouring under the misconception that a vocal minority spoke for, and represented the entire female population of America and furthermore, particularly after pussygate, she was assured of their vote. Not so.

Actually, that's not correct. Certainly HC and the rest of us lefties were overly confident-- even cocky. But the fact is it was not a "vocal minority". The majority of American women voted for Hillary. Unfortunately, not enough of them in a few key states to pass the EC-- which is what counts. But it was not a "vocal minority."
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
This link is work-safe but may not be fashion safe:

Kellyanne's "revolution-wear" inaugural duds
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This link is work-safe but may not be fashion safe:

Kellyanne's "revolution-wear" inaugural duds

I found the soundtrack for this outfit.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

HC was labouring under the misconception that a vocal minority spoke for, and represented the entire female population of America and furthermore, particularly after pussygate, she was assured of their vote. Not so.

Actually, that's not correct. Certainly HC and the rest of us lefties were overly confident-- even cocky. But the fact is it was not a "vocal minority". The majority of American women voted for Hillary. Unfortunately, not enough of them in a few key states to pass the EC-- which is what counts. But it was not a "vocal minority."
...which is one reason for reminding people that Hillary won the popular vote. Many people, in the US and elsewhere, don't realize that or don't want to believe it.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
OK, many many American women did vote against trump, I get that.

But what really strikes me, (and this big emphasis today on women marching as opposed to just People confirms it), is that the widening division which has come to exist between men and women in the US, and in other Western Countries, had already been caused by the 'vocal minority' itself . What trump did was to cleverly exploit it.
That is to say he deliberately campaigned as a misogynistic shithead, soaked up the flak for it and then came out victorious. Reverse psychology, or something like that.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
rolyn--

Re the division between men and women being caused by vocal women:

No.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
rolyn--

Re the division between men and women being caused by vocal women:

No.

Whereas, being caused by a misogynistic shithead:

Yes.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
OK, many many American women did vote against trump, I get that.

But what really strikes me, (and this big emphasis today on women marching as opposed to just People confirms it), is that the widening division which has come to exist between men and women in the US, and in other Western Countries, had already been caused by the 'vocal minority' itself . What trump did was to cleverly exploit it.
That is to say he deliberately campaigned as a misogynistic shithead, soaked up the flak for it and then came out victorious. Reverse psychology, or something like that.

If there is a split between women and misogynistic shitheads, don't blame it on women.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The widening division which has come to exist between men and women in the US, and in other Western Countries, had already been caused by the 'vocal minority' itself.

What "widening division"? I don't think it exists.

I think it's fair to say that since the start of the women's rights movement, there have been more women than men in favour of rights for women (but not 100%: back in the day you could find plenty of women to argue against universal suffrage).

If anything, I'd say the division was narrowing. A generation ago, Trumpian misogyny was widespread. Today, it draws widespread comment.

It wasn't enough to prevent him from being elected, and I think we've had discussions elsewhere about how many votes her femaleness cost Hillary Clinton, but I think your assumption is false.

You might as accurately have talked about the widening division between gay and straight people. We don't have one of those, either. What we have are women and gay people who have stepped out of the shade and are claiming their rights, and a reactionary rump who are unhappy about that. The majority of men, and the majority of straight people, are on the side of the women and the gay people. And that's the side that has demographic momentum behind it, too.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The majority of men, and the majority of straight people, are on the side of the women and the gay people. And that's the side that has demographic momentum behind it, too.

What exactly do you mean? At a first reading it sounds like you're saying that women and gays are going to make up an increasing portion of the population, which can't be what you mean.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What exactly do you mean? At a first reading it sounds like you're saying that women and gays are going to make up an increasing portion of the population, which can't be what you mean.

Just that younger people are more accepting of equality. It's not universal, of course, but today's young people have largely grown up in a world where having women scientists, doctors, and lawyers is normal. The next generation of young people will grow up with a chicken in every pot and a family with gay parents on every street.

Normalization wins.

(Slowly. It doesn't mean we can relax now, because there are real people whose lives are affected now by hatred and bigotry, and it's cold comfort to tell them that in a hundred years it'll be better.)
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
the widening division which has come to exist between men and women in the US, and in other Western Countries, had already been caused by the 'vocal minority' itself . What trump did was to cleverly exploit it.

What's the data about this division? My understanding is voting was largely along party lines in this election and did not show some kind of divergence along gender lines.
 
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
They're not lies. They're just alternative facts.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
What's the data about this division? My understanding is voting was largely along party lines in this election and did not show some kind of divergence along gender lines.

From what little I studied of it, (UK news), the impression gleaned was that DT, albeit largely by hinting, was looking to inflame the feminists knowing full well the tensions which had, for years, grown around these issues.
This, along with the whole dis-ing Hillary bit, not because she was a woman, Oh no, I doubt he ever said that, didn't need to such was the bombastic rhetoric of his whole campaign.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
They're not lies. They're just alternative facts.

I saw that term earlier today and was so upset that I didn't know it as a child. "No, Mom, I didn't lie. I told an alternative fact."
 
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :
 
I was just watching CNN (actually, it was in the background), and the folks at Webster's have stepped up and said that "alternative facts" do not exist as facts, but as incorrect statements or lies. Good on them.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
They're not lies. They're just alternative facts.

The alt right has alt facts. No surprise there!
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Or, as the dame said in Chicago, "He died of artistic differences. He saw himself as alive, and I saw him dead."

I was at the March in Washington. There were plenty of men there, some of them with lovely signs. (My husband's said I'M WITH HER.) There were also many dogs (one in a stroller), children, and teens. I saw one couple with a baby two months old. (I said, "You're crazy." The mom said, "He needs to become politically active." The dad said, "It's his baptism.")
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
OK, many many American women did vote against trump, I get that.

But what really strikes me, (and this big emphasis today on women marching as opposed to just People confirms it), is that the widening division which has come to exist between men and women in the US, and in other Western Countries, had already been caused by the 'vocal minority' itself . What trump did was to cleverly exploit it.
That is to say he deliberately campaigned as a misogynistic shithead, soaked up the flak for it and then came out victorious. Reverse psychology, or something like that.

The only way I can parse this is: "life was so much easier when a man could guarantee his wife would vote the way she was told, and Trump was clever in getting the votes of all those men who wish they could go back to being in charge".

[ 22. January 2017, 20:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
the widening division which has come to exist between men and women in the US, and in other Western Countries, had already been caused by the 'vocal minority' itself . What trump did was to cleverly exploit it.

What's the data about this division? My understanding is voting was largely along party lines in this election and did not show some kind of divergence along gender lines.
There was a historically large gender gap in who voted for Clinton.

Or not. I mean, I'm sure you could find some "alternative facts" about that.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yes. And, believe it or not, a whole bunch of women wanted a woman president, and a whole bunch of those chose Hillary. (As did many men.)

The US has never, ever had a woman president or VP. Occasionally, a first lady quietly filled in for an incapacitated president, behind the scenes. (Off the top of my head, Mrs. Woodrow Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt. Possibly others.) Good grief, India and Pakistan, not generally known for women's rights, have had women in charge.

When Hillary first ran, she and her supporters put "18 million cracks in that highest, hardest glass ceiling". This time, we kicked a hole in it; but the stupid Electoral College kept it from collapsing and put a grille over the hole.

Next time a woman runs, the damn thing is coming down. Hard hats recommended.
[Votive]

*orfeo*, thanks for the good comments and link. [Smile]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
OK, many many American women did vote against trump, I get that.

Not many. Not many, many. The majority. Not a vocal minority-- the majority. Come on, you can say it, I know that you can.


quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

But what really strikes me, (and this big emphasis today on women marching as opposed to just People confirms it), is that the widening division which has come to exist between men and women in the US, and in other Western Countries, had already been caused by the 'vocal minority' itself . What trump did was to cleverly exploit it.
That is to say he deliberately campaigned as a misogynistic shithead, soaked up the flak for it and then came out victorious. Reverse psychology, or something like that.

Wow. Way to victim-blame. When you speak out about oppression it's your fault that people get mad and elect a **** who will oppress you even more.

Just wow.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What exactly do you mean? At a first reading it sounds like you're saying that women and gays are going to make up an increasing portion of the population, which can't be what you mean.

Just that younger people are more accepting of equality. It's not universal, of course, but today's young people have largely grown up in a world where having women scientists, doctors, and lawyers is normal. The next generation of young people will grow up with a chicken in every pot and a family with gay parents on every street.

Normalization wins.

(Slowly. It doesn't mean we can relax now, because there are real people whose lives are affected now by hatred and bigotry, and it's cold comfort to tell them that in a hundred years it'll be better.)

I see. Now if we can just get the younger generations to give a fart about income/wealth inequality.
 
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
I was just watching CNN (actually, it was in the background), and the folks at Webster's have stepped up and said that "alternative facts" do not exist as facts, but as incorrect statements or lies. Good on them.

Be that as it may, I'm calling it now that this year's Oxford dictionary word(s) of the year will be "alternative facts"

Which is a big call. Not because it's only January. But because it's a Trump presidency.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
While we were laughing about this at home yesterday, an old friend called to say he'd just heard one of the trumplings complaining that "the facts have a liberal bias".
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The alt-right like alt-facts.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Leorning Cniht:
quote:
It doesn't mean we can relax now, because there are real people whose lives are affected now by hatred and bigotry, and it's cold comfort to tell them that in a hundred years it'll be better.
We can't relax at all, because rights can be taken away. Yes, Mrs I-want-to-repeal-the-Human-Rights-Act May, I am looking at YOU.

Women in England had fewer rights at the end of the seventeenth century than they did at the beginning.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see. Now if we can just get the younger generations to give a fart about income/wealth inequality.

You know the old saw about the young conservative having no heart, and the old liberal having no brain. I don't think that one's as sticky.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The alt-right like alt-facts.

[Overused]

[ 23. January 2017, 15:22: Message edited by: Al Eluia ]
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
While we were laughing about this at home yesterday, an old friend called to say he'd just heard one of the trumplings complaining that "the facts have a liberal bias".

Origin of above quote, via Paul Krugman.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
A good analysis from the Washington POST about how to manage and work around the PG in Chief's inability to be truthful.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I guess it makes things a lot easier in the orange one's imaginary kingdom if you simply disagree with the facts.

Don't like global warming? Lalalala. Don't like that huge crowds don't want to see your inauguration? Yes they did. Wahhhh. Think women are fine with your misogyny? Kellyanne thinks it's OK.

These bozos are never going to listen to reason or believe that they can ever be wrong.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:
I guess it makes things a lot easier in the orange one's imaginary kingdom if you simply disagree with the facts.

Don't like global warming? Lalalala. Don't like that huge crowds don't want to see your inauguration? Yes they did. Wahhhh. Think women are fine with your misogyny? Kellyanne thinks it's OK.

These bozos are never going to listen to reason or believe that they can ever be wrong.

He didn't really lose the popular vote either -- it was just all those illegals voting for Hillary. All real Americans love him.

[ 24. January 2017, 15:37: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
That was why the March was so important. The Chief Ogler only understands crowds, numbers of people. If the largest protest march in history was against him, it is more real (bigly!) than any other attack.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That was why the March was so important. The Chief Ogler only understands crowds, numbers of people. If the largest protest march in history was against him, it is more real (bigly!) than any other attack.

But he'd probably say that obviously all of the millions who marched were illegals (mostly Mexicans and Moslems) who were paid by Hillary.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Wow, Hill must've had plenty of money! Even at a dollar a pop, that'd be over a million dollars for DC alone.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Not Hillary. It was Soros. Someone's proved it. Down the other trouser leg, of course.

(I keep using this picture. I first met it in a book by Fred Hoyle about cosmology, in which he postulated that a possible shape for the universe was trouser shaped. The idea is that as time develops, it is impossible for parts of the universe moving down one leg to no longer have contact with parts down the other leg.

An example of its fictional use is the new version of Star Trek, in which the events of the first new film have split the universe and mean that what happened in the original series is now lost down one leg, while the new series makes it way down another. Is that right, Brenda?

In the case of Trump, the alternative facts clearly belong to a version of the universe which is not the one we are inhabiting. Hence the other trouser leg.

Hope this isn't a case of grandmother education in ovo-suction.)
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
Meanwhile, I pity the screenwriters of "House of Cards", the first real victims of Trump's presidency. After all the drama and treachery of the first four series, they are faced with the hopeless choice of either continuing as they have and creating a bland plot of boredom, or trying to outdo the Trump reality show and winding up in the realm of psychedelic absurdity.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Not Hillary. It was Soros. Someone's proved it. Down the other trouser leg, of course.

(I keep using this picture. I first met it in a book by Fred Hoyle about cosmology, in which he postulated that a possible shape for the universe was trouser shaped. The idea is that as time develops, it is impossible for parts of the universe moving down one leg to no longer have contact with parts down the other leg.

An example of its fictional use is the new version of Star Trek, in which the events of the first new film have split the universe and mean that what happened in the original series is now lost down one leg, while the new series makes it way down another. Is that right, Brenda?

In the case of Trump, the alternative facts clearly belong to a version of the universe which is not the one we are inhabiting. Hence the other trouser leg.

Hope this isn't a case of grandmother education in ovo-suction.)

I believe Hoyle was too modest. It's not two legs. It's an infinite number of them. The pleasant thing about this is that any subset of an infinite number is infinite; this means that somewhere there are an infinite number of universes when Tiny Fingers is a street sweeper.
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
So Terry Pratchett was right about the Trousers of Time after all?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
As I was writing, I thought, hang about, it's not just two legs, but I hadn't got as far as infinity, just working with an octopus. And I thought that would be confusing enough!

Yes, TP was correct.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Penny S:
quote:
In the case of Trump, the alternative facts clearly belong to a version of the universe which is not the one we are inhabiting. Hence the other trouser leg.
I wish our Trump would disappear down a trouser leg with a weak bladder above it.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
As I was writing, I thought, hang about, it's not just two legs, but I hadn't got as far as infinity, just working with an octopus. And I thought that would be confusing enough!

I only know because, yes, I am writing a novel.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Her Eyes, dear God, Her eyes.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
I'm sure she's in here somewhere.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There's a lot of plastic going on with that woman.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a lot of plastic going on with that woman.

If she actually paid for that face, she should sue for malpractice.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Meanwhile, I pity the screenwriters of "House of Cards", the first real victims of Trump's presidency. After all the drama and treachery of the first four series, they are faced with the hopeless choice of either continuing as they have and creating a bland plot of boredom, or trying to outdo the Trump reality show and winding up in the realm of psychedelic absurdity.

I said quite some time ago that all this was making House of Cards look like a tame documentary.

I can't help wondering whether the next episode of Designated Survivor will have to be put off indefinitely for similar reasons.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You saw that South Park has thrown in the towel. It is no longer possible for them to make fun of Lyin' Don. Over on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me (a comedic radio show revolving around current events) they had to plead with the Abuser in Chief to slow down, because the fire-hose flood of risible material was so great that they could not cope.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Her Eyes, dear God, Her eyes.

Rode hard and put away wet.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I'm sure she's in here somewhere.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a lot of plastic going on with that woman.

Really? You find it necessary to resort to comments about her physical appearance when she provides so much material for legitimate ridicule?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Normally, I would agree that criticising someone's appearance instead of their actions and words is not correct, but sometimes, the appearance does seem to reflect the internal state and to indicate what sort of person a person is. Which may be the case here.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Normally, I would agree that criticising someone's appearance instead of their actions and words is not correct, but sometimes, the appearance does seem to reflect the internal state and to indicate what sort of person a person is. Which may be the case here.

I've seen any number of people remark that she must be someone's RL "Portrait of Dorian Grey".
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by me:
There's a lot of plastic going on with that woman.

quote:
Then this by W Hyatt:
Really? You find it necessary to resort to comments about her physical appearance when she provides so much material for legitimate ridicule?

The double entendre is lost on you. Plastic means fake. The reflection was fake appearance and fake statements. She's got the face & donald her equally blond master, the hair. Two fake fakers. Really fake. Huge fakers. Terrible.

In fact she had referred to her made-up massacre twice before she was caught: Cosmo mag 29 Jan,
TMZ video interview.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
While we were laughing about this at home yesterday, an old friend called to say he'd just heard one of the trumplings complaining that "the facts have a liberal bias".

Origin of above quote, via Paul Krugman.
What a hilarious comment. I'm going to steal it right now in a message to a friend.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It is appropriate to mention Kellyanne's rather outre physica nappearance, because her boss is so driven by externals. To the point where he 'casts' his cabinet by selecting people who look the part. Here is a POST article discussing this in the context of SNL parodies. I would dare to say that she would not have the job today, if she were not slim and blonde. A chubby brown woman would never be considered.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I wonder whether she made up the massacre herself, misspoke once and was afraid to take it back, misunderstood something she was told by Trump/aides, was handed the story as true, or was handed the story as "you need to go out there and convince them this fiction actually happened"?
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by me:
There's a lot of plastic going on with that woman.

quote:
Then this by W Hyatt:
Really? You find it necessary to resort to comments about her physical appearance when she provides so much material for legitimate ridicule?

The double entendre is lost on you. Plastic means fake. The reflection was fake appearance and fake statements. She's got the face & donald her equally blond master, the hair. Two fake fakers. Really fake. Huge fakers. Terrible.

In fact she had referred to her made-up massacre twice before she was caught: Cosmo mag 29 Jan,
TMZ video interview.

The double entendre was indeed lost on me - sorry.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
How dare you apologise in Hell, you wicked hotel!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How dare you apologise in Hell, you wicked hotel!

And again, all attempts to explain to you numbskulls that Hell is a place where bad behaviour is permitted, not mandatory, are shown to be too sophisticated for the mouth-breathers at the back of the room to grasp.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is appropriate to mention Kellyanne's rather outre physica nappearance, because her boss is so driven by externals. To the point where he 'casts' his cabinet by selecting people who look the part. Here is a POST article discussing this in the context of SNL parodies. I would dare to say that she would not have the job today, if she were not slim and blonde. A chubby brown woman would never be considered.

Slim and blonde she may be but she also appears to be unusually bitter, twisted and angry. I suppose that's what Trump likes about her.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How dare you apologise in Hell, you wicked hotel!

And again, all attempts to explain to you numbskulls that Hell is a place where bad behaviour is permitted, not mandatory, are shown to be too sophisticated for the mouth-breathers at the back of the room to grasp.
Peanut gallery comments are never required either. The joke is over your head apparently.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The joke is over your head apparently.

For the record, I did manage to pick up on that one. [Cool]
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How dare you apologise in Hell, you wicked hotel!

And again, all attempts to explain to you numbskulls that Hell is a place where bad behaviour is permitted, not mandatory, are shown to be too sophisticated for the mouth-breathers at the back of the room to grasp.
Ah... this must be hell for you. QED.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It's Hell for all of us.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's Hell for all of us.

Just one of the reasons I quit

Sioni, former Hell host
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
Conway has now schilled Ivanka Trump's clothes on TV - youtube video here.

quote:
"Go buy Ivanka's stuff," Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, told Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy.

Ivanka Trump has a "wonderful line," Conway added. "I own some of it. I fully, I'm gonna just going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today everybody. You can find it online."

However, this is a little bit naughty (and she has been 'counselled' for it):

"An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity."

Has she no shame or understanding that being in government is not the same as being in business? That it is not just about 'my side winning'?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The joke is over your head apparently.

For the record, I did manage to pick up on that one. [Cool]
As did I. Doesn't mean I had to like it.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
But she is affiliated with Ivanka in a governmental, not non-governmental capacity.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But she is affiliated with Ivanka in a governmental, not non-governmental capacity.

I'm pretty sure that Ivanka's clothing range is not government issue.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Well I've done my part today to support the Resistance. I went over to Nordstrom Rack and bought a pair of thigh-high tan suede boots, on sale. Needless to say they are not the Ivanka brand but much more funky and cool.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I've never been a big fan of Nordstrom's (a bit too snooty for me), but I do intend to stop by next week when I'm at the Mall. I think I might even apply for one of their credit cards.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
You need not spend money -- over on the Decluttering thread we are told that one of the secrets of combating Clutter is to never buy anything you don't actually adore. You could go to the Nordstrom web site and scroll all the way to the bottom. There's a Contact Us tab which, if pursued, eventually allows you to send them an email. Drop them a note supporting their decision. I told them that their dropping of the plastic Kardashian wannabee's product had inspired me to go over and shop.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Pigwidgeon--

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I've never been a big fan of Nordstrom's (a bit too snooty for me), but I do intend to stop by next week when I'm at the Mall. I think I might even apply for one of their credit cards.

So the Trumps are helping the economy already! [Biased]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I've never been a big fan of Nordstrom's (a bit too snooty for me), but I do intend to stop by next week when I'm at the Mall. I think I might even apply for one of their credit cards.

Most of their stuff is out of my price range, but I do shop their sales racks for nice work clothes. I'll be making it a point to check those racks a bit more often now. And at the very least I'll drop by their coffee bar for a latte.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I was delighted to hear that after TFO's first tweet about Nordstrom's cruelty to his daughter, Nordstrom stock went up 4%.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Seems to me you can spin this either way.

quote:
The tweet, which was sent by Mr Trump's @realDonaldTrump account, was then retweeted by the official @POTUS account.

Shares in the retailer briefly fell 0.7%, before rising later in the day.

source.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well, you can't prove that the path of virtue is easy from the Bible. Look what happened to St. Paul.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Meanwhile, I pity the screenwriters of "House of Cards", the first real victims of Trump's presidency. After all the drama and treachery of the first four series, they are faced with the hopeless choice of either continuing as they have and creating a bland plot of boredom, or trying to outdo the Trump reality show and winding up in the realm of psychedelic absurdity.

The second were the writers of the new series of 'Homeland' who bet on having a female President.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Ah, but I think the writers of "Homeland" were hedging their bets. The new POTUS is a woman, but she has isolationist tendencies and is no friend of the CIA. Quite clever really.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This should amuse: an account of a Utah congressman's meeting with constituents. Nothing like screams of "Your last term!" to brighten an elected official's day.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
It would seem that Kellyanne has disappeared, and the New Yorker - no fake news here - is making the most of it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Stercus Tauri--

Maybe this is implied in your post, and I'm missing it...but that piece is satire, FYI.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This should amuse: an account of a Utah congressman's meeting with constituents. Nothing like screams of "Your last term!" to brighten an elected official's day.

Empty words unless they actually vote him out.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Stercus Tauri--

Maybe this is implied in your post, and I'm missing it...but that piece is satire, FYI.

Er.... yes, thank you. That's what Borowitz does. He's very good at it.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
ST--

Ok. [Smile] Mentioned it because some people don't get that it's satire, and you said "not fake news", so...

Carry on.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0