Jonathan Pie explains it
[YOUTUBE]GLG9g7BcjKs[/YOUTUBE]
Fucking Donald Trump. The left is responsible for this result.
Because the left have now decided that any other opinion, any other way of looking at the world is unacceptable. We don't debate any more, because the left won the cultural war. So if you're on the right, you're a freak. You're evil, you're racist, you're stupid, you are a basket of deplorables. How do you THINK people are going to vote if you talk to them like that? When has anyone ever been PERSUADED by being insulted or labelled?
It's amazing how many chose to be deplorable.
In addition to that, the left severely underestimated how many HATE/D Hillary and also how many didn't want another Bush nor Clinton presidency. History be damned.
On the other hand, how many were ever PERSUADED by debate, either? Very few people on either side have any ability to be persuaded at all. This most definitely is the left's fault, but only in that the party leaders ignored the obvious trends in the electorate and chose Hillary over Bernie. I live in red country and I'm here to tell you, no one has a monopoly on calling the other side names.
Even people who are fairly thick skinned with regard to name calling can get fed up when it becomes automatic demonizing. People previously called sexist automatically became rapists, people previously called anti-immigration automatically became racists, people previously called pro-gun automatically became killers. That propaganda technique works domestically when it's applied internationally and a rival country automatically becomes the evil empire; but, it backfires when applied domestically to disenfranchise segments of the population.
Even people who are fairly thick skinned with regard to name calling can get fed up when it becomes automatic demonizing.
Examples.
Another Brit has a similar take, Clive Crook:
Revenge of the Deplorables
The crucial extra ingredient, I think, was the way the case against Trump was framed. Clinton's goal should have been to detach a slice of his support. The best way for her to do that, issue by issue, would have been to acknowledge the particle of truth in his claims, if any, and say why her approach to the problem was better. Instead, she and her supporters refused to grant the validity of any part of Trump's pitch. Even that wasn't enough. Trump was a racist and a fascist, they said. Support him, and you're no better: Either that, or you're an idiot for failing to see it.
Apparently it takes more than four years of college to understand this: You don't get people to see things your way by calling them idiots and racists, or sorting them into baskets of deplorables and pitiables (deserving of sympathy for their moral and intellectual failings). If you can't manage genuine respect for the people whose votes you want, at least try to fake it.
Examples.
Examples are in the quote UT provided in post #7.
I'm referring to the wealth of Independents who typically voted Democrat; but, didn't toe the party line in all regards. In those areas where they differed, Independents became collateral damage in the demonizing of Republicans via the Independents' few overlapping views; whereas, they would have been OK with constructive criticism.
Clinton and her hardcore followers took the position of
My way; or, the highway. Independents who became collateral damage turned the tables on them. They showed Clinton the highway.
Instead, she and her supporters refused to grant the validity of any part of Trump's pitch. Even that wasn't enough. Trump was a racist and a fascist, they said. Support him, and you're no better: Either that, or you're an idiot for failing to see it.
Whether you call
everyone who disagrees with you racist, fascist, idiots or
children, you put up a wall of disrespect that cuts off your influence with them. When they turn the tables on you, you've gotten what you bargained for. Using that propaganda technique domestically was a losing strategy in the first place.
But Clinton has always been that way. She's just too full of herself to change her approach. Gosh, I sure hope no one here in The Cellar ends up like her.
Just think, if Michelle Obama does run in 2020, the Obamas will have taken what she wanted twice. Then all that needs to happen is for Sasha to outbid her on a summer house in Florida, and Malia to take a job that Chelsea was supposed to get, and finally Chelsea's kid and Malia's kid will be ready to be star-crossed lovers.
You imagination is running wild. When Obama leaves office he Will be rich, no need to drag his family into the quagmire of politics.
Just think, if Michelle Obama does run in 2020, the Obamas will have taken what she wanted twice.
This... Oh my ....
On the other hand, how many were ever PERSUADED by debate, either? Very few people on either side have any ability to be persuaded at all. This most definitely is the left's fault, but only in that the party leaders ignored the obvious trends in the electorate and chose Hillary over Bernie. I live in red country and I'm here to tell you, no one has a monopoly on calling the other side names.
This.
I don't think Clinton is anywhere near the nightmare she has been portrayed as - the idea that she is the epitome of corruption and deception just doesn't hold water, there are and have been far worse politicians in the US system than Hilary. But what she absolutely is, is establishment. And within the democratic party, the Clinton wing does not offer enough of a different analysis from mainstream republicanism to win over those disillusioned with global capitalism and neo-conservatism.
For years, the right of the democratic party has stomped all over the left on the basis that they are more electable. Socialism maybe a dirty word in America, but in truth it has been applied wholesale to a branch of the party that is far from socialist. The dominant wing of the democrats simple don't offer an alternative and have conspired with the rest of the mainstream political class to demonise anything less than neo-con attitudes as a way of distancing themselves from their 'unelectable' left wing.
Bernie Sanders offered a genuine political alternative, with a genuinely alternative analysis.
I am not saying he would have won - there's truly no way to know - but it would have been a true contest between differing ideologies and political solutions, and there's a whole bunch of people disillusioned enough with the status quo that they might have been willing to listen to that alternative.
This election was not a battle between left and right. It was a battle between a representative of an entrenched political elite and an outsider.
... But what she absolutely is, is establishment. ...
She said "is, is" [SIZE="1"]
(*snicker*)[/SIZE].
Another Brit has a similar take, Clive Crook:
... Clinton's goal should have been to detach a slice of his support. The best way for her to do that, issue by issue, would have been to acknowledge the particle of truth in his claims, if any, and say why her approach to the problem was better.
Clinton did just that. Large numbers of mainstream Republicans denounced Trump. Some (including Mr Republican George Wills) resigned from the party.
But let's stop ignoring what all these 'after action' pundits still do not understand. Go out into the hinderlands. About half a radio dial is right wing extremists talk show hosts claiming America is dying. No facts say that. Growth that was so destroyed by an administration in 2000-2008 was restored. Companies are hiring. Products are being exported. A massive debt created by the Cheney extremists is being reduced. Hate against minorities was being eliminated. American military is more powerful than the next 5 largest militaries combined. And America is finally telling other allied nations that they first must address issues in their own region. America is not your 911 Policeman. Many are finally getting it.
That is not what the god on AM radio says. Plus, some industries have not innovated in over 40 years. So many workers in rust belt regions are getting screwed by business school graduates (which includes George Jr and The Donald). AM radio gods tell them to blame Washington.
Washington does not create jobs. Never will. Washington can destroy jobs - as George Jr did. But jobs can only be created by innovation.
All that is too complex for many only educated by spin doctor radio. Easier is to blame the establishment. Ironically, nobody seems to notice that. Do they not drive out to the hinderlands to scan the air waves? Apparently not. We know many only believe the first thing they are told. Then get angry or adversarial when a reality is stated later. Out there where jobs are less numerous (especially in the anti-innovation American coal and steel industries), large numbers are so hyped angry as to vote in numbers never before seen.
Out there, logical discussion is rare. Anger and emotions hyped by talk show extremists is about half the radio stations. And so the turnout, driven by emotion, was massive.
Did Donald understand that? Of course not. He simply did what is usually does - demean, attack, and insult others. It played well in the hinderlands where talk show radio says everything is bad - despite facts and numbers that say otherwise.
Easy is to blame Washington using emotion and sound byte logic. Especially when the local media is mostly promoting it. Amazingly, pundits looking for reasons to explain their confusion do not
I agree with tw on this one. :eek: It's easier to generate hate with a sound bite than explain reality.
Not the reason but almost certainly one of them.
The timing of his announcement clearly had the potential to impact early voting. It was a hugely damaging blow. The hardline hilary haters already considered her criminally corrupt - with that announcement those prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt were offered apparent evidence that there really is no smoke without fire - right before they were expected to cast their vote.
By the time the fire was revealed to be merely a smoke machine the damage was done.
Not the reason but almost certainly one of them.
That would make sense if what was on the ground (literally) was ignored. Visit the hinderlands of FL or PA. Those Trump signs were everywhere. Trump signs outnumbered all other candidates combined. Those signs were there long before Comey made his comments.
Clinton's comments would be based in data that was clearly flawed. She can only blame what her data would explain.
For example, many did not see 'the wall' as necessary to keep out immigants - legal or illegal. Many families in the hinderland are suffering from major heroine problems mostly traceable to opiate addiction. A problem created by big Pharma that is now more interested in profits than the product. 'The wall' is viewed as a solution to their major problem.
Did Clinton's grass root operation and data structure identify these problems?
A major change in America is productive jobs moving to big cities - mostly coastal cities. Farming and other rural communities no longer create new jobs. People who graduate with higher educations leave for the big cities.
Auto jobs are gone from a mid west industrial belt - directly traceable to a motor industry that stopped innovating ten and thirty years ago. Jobs created today could only exist if innovations were being created ten and more years ago. Neither coal nor steel does necessary innovation in the past 40 years. So jobs losses become major today.
Even a white appliance business is not being downsized since MBAs have now taken over and merged those companies in the name of cost controls. Samsung and LG are now preferred products.
Where did Democrat data reflect a severe cultural depression in these hinderland? It doesn't. Hilary can only blame what her data sees. It apparently does not see what exists, why it exists, a stagnant living standard, and propaganda routinely repeated daily in the hinderland to enhance anger.
Her data should have seen a tidal wave combined with cheapshot anger that was growing in the hinderland. Her data apparently did not explain all those Trump signs months ago combined with an anger behind them. Comey did not create that discontent.
I need all your help here. I am a little bit under-informed.
I can remember several Trump policy proposals, because they were popularly repeated and heavily debated.
What would you say was Hillary's most memorable, popularly repeated and heavily debated policy proposal?
The Democrats are big on diversity. But Tyler Cowen claims their view is too narrow. I agree with him, I hear a lot more bitching about those bastards on the other side of town, the next town/county, or in the state capitol, than racial/ethnic groups, although sometimes they coincide.
The Democratic Party today is more likely to stress the relevance of ethnic and racial diversity, if the talk is about diversity. (Gender diversity too, but that requires its own post, maybe later to come.) Non-Democrats are more likely to count other forms of diversity for more than the Democrats do. I see Democrats as somewhat concentrated in particular cities and also in particular occupations, more than Republicans are. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is another way in which Democrats are less diverse.
When it comes to views about the relevant forms of diversity, the views of non-Democrats are more diverse than the views of Democrats, I would hazard to guess. A non-Democrat is more likely to focus on something other than racial and ethnic diversity, compared to a Democrat.
Correctly or not, many Americans do not think racial and ethnic diversity is the diversity that should command so much attention. That is one place to start for understanding why so many 2012 Obama voters switched to Trump this time around, or maybe just stayed home.
More here... The hardline hilary haters already considered her criminally corrupt - with that announcement those prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt were offered apparent evidence that there really is no smoke without fire - right before they were expected to cast their vote.
By the time the fire was revealed to be merely a smoke machine the damage was done.
That's not quite the way it works here. Only the Clinton supporters want to draw the line at whether or not a crime was committed.
Americans do not have a right to a security clearance. As an American, if your country is in conflict with another country (or subset group) and you marry a member of that group, it's not a crime; but, you can lose your security clearance. If you have substantial gambling debts, it's not a crime; but, you can lose your security clearance. Just about anything you do that makes you susceptible to detrimental influence (e.g. extortion), that's not a crime, can cause you to lose your security clearance. If your job requires a security clearance, you lose your job. If your job doesn't require a security clearance, like the Presidency, you still lose your ability to function.
The mere fact that additional copies of Clinton emails turned up somewhere not yet accounted for did her in with many. Who knows if and where they'll turn up in the future. Who knows if they'll be redundancies; or, if there'll be something new. Who knows if more turn up, that someone won't want something from a president Clinton in return for not making waves; or, worse.
Even when government employees are authorized to use personal assets for government work, there are conditions. The personal assets have to meet or exceed government requirements and come at no cost to the government. Any problems associated with the choice to use personal assets become the sole responsibility of the person who chose to do so. How much has the government, funded by the taxpayers, had to pay for the aftermath of Clinton's decision?
These conditions apply to all levels of government service. As an SF O&I NCO I was issued a photographic equipment set AND I was authorized to use my personal equipment. If my performance suffered because my personal equipment wasn't serviceable to military standards, I could be disciplined. If my personal equipment was lost or damaged in the line of duty, the government had no liability. Even though I was taking photographs with my personal equipment, they had to be handled in accordance with government regulations. Everything was FOUO (For Official Use Only) with tentative higher classifications (e.g. confidential, secret, top secret) required as appropriate until they could be reviewed by a classifying authority.
Clinton felt she was above all that just because she was in the top strata of government. She was right in that she could get away with it with her peers and superiors. She was wrong in that she could not get away with it with the public. Clinton's actions put the onus on FBI Director Comey to deal with the adverse ramifications of her poor judgement as they developed. She bears full responsibility for the consequences and their timing. He just did his job. Clinton blaming Comey just makes her a scoundrel.
There's a very old saying in the military that once they pin on that second star, they stop being a soldier and become a politician. Some align themselves with other politicians who think they're above it all. That's how we get the Powells and Patraeuses.
I seem to remember it was Colin Powell who did the presentations to convince the world Saddam Hussein had WMD. He was Dubya's toady. Didn't expect much more from him at that stage of his career.
It's going to be a two-term Presidency because of this.
Trump Racism:
You Are Still Crying Wolf
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Trump made big gains among blacks. He made big gains among Latinos. He made big gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.
Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on.
The media responded to all of this freely available data with articles like White Flight From Reality: Inside The Racist Panic That Fueled Donald Trump’s Victory and Make No Mistake: Donald Trump’s Win Represents A Racist “Whitelash”.
I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.
I dunno about that.
He's comparing the
percentage of voters in this election to the
percentage of voters in 2012, but I feel like that's comparing apples to oranges.
I read in numerous places that Trump won because many Obama voters stayed home when confronted with Hillary on the ticket. Those Obama voters are not being counted in his analysis, but they are out there and will show up again if a future candidate motivates them.
I can't find the statistics, but let's crunch numbers based on figures that are available.
We know there were 124,326.830 total voters this year and according to NYT, 12 percent of them were black. That works out to 14,919,220. And of those, 8 percent voted for Trump. That works out to 1,193,538 black Trump voters in 2016.
In 2012, there were 126,849,299 total voters and 13 percent of them were black. That's 16,490,409 black voters. Of those, 6% voted for Romney, or 989,425 black voters for Romney.
Huh. More actual blacks voted Republican this year, not just percentages of voters.
OK.
Let's go back to Obama's first election.
In 2008, there were 129,446,839 total voters. Of those, 13% were black, or 16,828,089 black voters. Of those, 4% voted for McCain, or 673,123 black votes for McCain.
673,123 to 989,425 to 1,193,538.
The number of black Republicans steadily increases each election. So let's look at the trend for Democrats to see if population growth is skewing things.
In 2008, there were 15,986,684 blacks voting for Obama
In 2012, there were 15,336,080 blacks voting for Obama
In 2016, there were 13,128,914 blacks voting for Clinton
And now I'm not even sure what this post means. I'm contradicting myself. I think my calculations are somewhat flawed where percentages of voters are used to calculate number of voters.
The percentages are given by NYT as nice whole numbers, but they have to have been rounded off, and the margins are so small, I think the rounding could be leading to misleading numbers. One thing is clear though, black Democrats who came out for Obama's first election have been staying home more and more with each election, and at the same time, the number of black Republican voters has been steadily increasing.
WTF
I'm always suspicious of exit polls. How many lie? What kind of people would stand there and answer 33 question giving personal information? How many go to the poll thinking about Trade or immigrants?
I wonder what the 40% of eligible voters were thinking that didn't bother?
And if this year proves anything, it's that polls are bullshit.
The thing about the "boy who cried wolf" story is that the wolf did come in the end.
It's a good cautionary tale for those who raise alarms, but not a good one to invoke to justify ignoring them.
There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter).
Insomuch as there's no evidence he believes anything in particular, perhaps. But his personal beliefs don't matter, especially if he never reveals them. We do know he's willing to say pretty racist stuff to rile a crowd, though.
All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up.
This isn't true, though. Whatever his motives, the crowd was riled. At the time, he may have just thought of them as votes, but white supremacist groups are touting his election as their victory, and his appointment of Bannon isn't going to disabuse them of that notion.
Insomuch as there's no evidence he believes anything in particular, perhaps. But his personal beliefs don't matter, especially if he never reveals them.
He really was not saying what he thinks. He just kept throwing shit on the wall. Every so often, something would stick. So he kept saying that thing and stopped saying anything that did not get a good response.
Honesty was rarely in his tool kit. He simply said what an emotional group of people wanted to hear. Therefore anything that displeased them was not repeated. And they forgot he said it.
The "emotional group" was the left, who wanted to hear so they could hate;
And they predictably emotionally overreacted to each of these things in turn, hence actually promoting them to the people who kinda liked the ideas, and leaving no air in the room for anything else.
And this is one reason my question "What would you say was Hillary's most memorable, popularly repeated and heavily debated policy proposal?" ...got crickets.
Thus allowing the Trump campaign to have messages that were far stronger and more widely spread than the opposition, even as they were outspent two to one.
Who elected Trump, YOU did.
From the NY Times of 17 Nov 2016:
Automated Pro-Trump Bots Overwhelmed Pro-Clinton Messages, Researchers Say
An automated army of pro-Donald J. Trump chatbots overwhelmed similar programs supporting Hillary Clinton five to one in the days leading up to the presidential election, ...
Their purpose: to rant, confuse people on facts, or simply muddy discussions, said Philip N. Howard, a sociologist at the Oxford Internet Institute and one of the authors of the report. If you were looking for a real debate of the issues, you weren’t going to find it with a chatbot.
"They're yelling fools," Dr. Howard said. "And a lot of what they pass around is false news."
The role fake news played in the presidential election has become a sore point for the technology industry, particularly Google, Twitter and Facebook. ...
In some cases, the bots would post embarrassing photos, make references to the Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into Mrs. Clinton's private email server, or produce false statements, for instance, that Mrs. Clinton was about to go to jail or was already in jail. ...
The Oxford researchers had previously reported that political chatbots had played a role in shaping the political landscape that led to Britain's "Brexit" vote.
When your supporters are emotional, then fake news becomes fact. Same also 'proved' Saddam had WMDs. More examples of how Trump just kept throwing shit on the wall until something stuck. It works best on emotional adults - who still think like children. Who know what is 'true' without bothering to first learn underlying facts and 'reasons why'.
They also noted that bots tend to circulate negative news much more effectively than positive reports.
The emotional mostly focus on and are best manipulated by negative reports.
Jon Stewart explains why liberal thinking of the Trump support "monolithically" is hypocritical:
[youtube]mUkv_jPgTeg?start=252&end=292[/youtube]
I knew it as soon as the term "Bernie Bros" became a thing--implying that "sexism" was the root cause of differing political viewpoints (and ignoring the real issue(s)--corporate money in politics, wealth inequality, and economic stagnation for the working class over a DECADES-long period).
I knew it as soon as "Bernie Bros" were called "violent" at the Nevada convention--the Democratic Establishment and their propaganda arm (mainstream media) colluded to disparage the PEOPLE (the actual VOTERS) instead of the candidate (much less the candidate's ideas).
I saw the same HRC campaign stunts in the General Election--catching Trump flat-footed with the Machada "surprise" attack--and the media already having days worth of stories and interviews ready to dominate the airwaves!--the same "liberal media" shenanigans that Conservatives had bemoaned for years--and HRC's campaign had already PROVED were true (to the Dem's own, most-enthusiastic voters!) by railroading Bernie with the same dirty attack style.
The one burning topic that the Democratic Elite failed to recognize--regular American's POCKETBOOKS--is what won the election for Trump (ironically, a billionaire con artist), and the very area where Bernie (a scandal-free, voter enthusiasm goldmine) excelled. Now the Democrats are left with no recognizable ideas that anybody cares about (like the environment, income inequality--you know, things they DIDN'T talk about), and left with the same garbage approach that lost them an election to--literally--an orangutan.
Democrats made their platform political correctness. Turned out doing that was politically incorrect.
I knew it as soon as "Bernie Bros" were called "violent" at the Nevada convention--the Democratic Establishment and their propaganda arm (mainstream media) colluded to disparage the PEOPLE (the actual VOTERS) instead of the candidate (much less the candidate's ideas).
I saw the same HRC campaign stunts in the General Election--catching Trump flat-footed with the Machada "surprise" attack--and the media already having days worth of stories and interviews ready to dominate the airwaves!--the same "liberal media" shenanigans that Conservatives had bemoaned for years--and HRC's campaign had already PROVED were true (to the Dem's own, most-enthusiastic voters!) by railroading Bernie with the same dirty attack style.
So much THIS!!!
UK needs migration 'because native Britons are bloody stupid', says pro-EU lord
~ well that will convince them to vote for it ~
This is exactly what Mr Pie was talking about.
So much THIS!!!
Sounds like the kind of thing Infi might also think bears repeating; but, wouldn't to throw someone else a bone.
The one burning topic that the Democratic Elite failed to recognize--regular American's POCKETBOOKS--is what won the election for Trump (ironically, a billionaire con artist), and the very area where Bernie (a scandal-free, voter enthusiasm goldmine) excelled. Now the Democrats are left with no recognizable ideas that anybody cares about (like the environment, income inequality--you know, things they DIDN'T talk about), and left with the same garbage approach that lost them an election to--literally--an orangutan.
Sooo well put.
Oh good. The Democrats chose Nancy Pelosi as their leader for the 8th time in the House of Representatives. That's just what they needed to do to find a new path forward into the future. I'm sure she will have lots of fresh new ideas that resonate with the voters and invigorate the party.
Yup, I'm sure everyone is THRILLED with this choice.
Awesome, because what we needed was more people on both sides of the aisle being absolutely disgusted with the tone-deafness of their own party, mentally checking out of the whole political process, and reluctantly voting for garbage candidates.
The state of journalism.
It's personal anecdote time
Back in 1999 my then friend Thom (cellar username: darling) developed a large amount of the Eagles' web site, and I helped; and on Draft Day 1999, we were in the media room, building the Draft Day page as facts developed. It was supposed to be the first time fans could follow the draft on the site. No live video, this was 1999, but we would update the page throughout the day and have stories and details and whatnot.
When Donovan McNabb was drafted, one of the first things that went down was a live chat with Donovan and the fans.
After it happened we set up a web page with a bunch of questions, along with McNabb's responses to them. A bunch of reporters happened to be looking over my shoulder as I set it up, and they all kinda noticed that here were a bunch of QUOTES from the player, all ready and written down and stuff.
You see, that's what they were there for. The reporters would get quotes, put them around their story, and then they would have real journalism. That was like, the point, or something; someone specifically talked to the person, live, and asked them things, wrote it down and here it is in the newspaper.
Which is why you'd have a press conference where a bunch of reporters would ask questions.
But when the reporters noticed all the quotes, I could see the lights going on in their heads... hey there are the quotes I was looking for... real quotes of the player... and they actually jotted them down, in their notebooks, while reading the web page.
And I realized they were going to take these quotes and put them in the newspapers that would be printed and appear on people's doorsteps, 14 hours later. And I thought, wow, I am seeing the change in journalism right here.
Because everyone who gives a damn could have seen these quotes, and MANY more of them, directly from the source. There's no need to gather people in a room and ask questions. The room is now the chat room and the source is the website. Everyone see it who wants to. Everyone who wants to ask questions can ask questions. The quotes are the same they ever were. Why have sports reporters at all?
Now it's 15 years later and I don't pay so much attention to the media, now, but on Trump, it's kind of reduced to reading tweets and gathering angry reactions at them, isn't it? Well WTF does anyone need that for?
In theory, the reporters were still needed because they would make sure that you (the webmaster) didn't just make that shit up. The reporter was the guy who put his credibility on the line and said, "Yeah, I was in the room and I saw him say it and I'm willing to be fired if it turns out I'm wrong."
It's people's trust in their own egos that has allowed them to be snowed by the people who just completely, 100%, make shit up. The "I'm too smart, I read it with my own two eyes, no one could fool me," attitude. Not saying the news right now doesn't suck, it absolutely does--but that was a natural market reaction in tandem with the reporters getting lazy and the people saying they didn't need the old style of news anymore.
At those news conferences not everyone asks question but they all record(take notes) on the question and the answer. Finding you had written it down save them the trouble but doesn't mean they didn't listen. Finding you (the court reporter) had transcribed it, makes it easier.
Thing is, they weren't even in the room.
In fact, there was no room, unless you count the chat room. Mr. McNabb was being limo'd from Manhattan down to Vet Stadium Philly, and was talking on a cell phone to someone in the Eagles office. They read the chat questions to him, and he answered, and they typed it into the chat room.
"Are these McNabb quotes?" one of the reporters even asked as I copied and pasted the chat room text into the website. The game was afoot.
They wouldn't get to actually talk to McNabb for another hour or two, and may have been able to make an early story deadline by using those quotes.
OK, the news conference hadn't actually happened yet.
I really wish you had put in something funny, like how he wanted his uniform with his name in purple, or whatever, just to screw with their heads.
Bill the Cat becomes America's new fact checker.
Nice.
I'm still in the process of reworking my bacebook news feed.As of now its NPR and WashPost. Nobody reports shit anymore. A new guy at fencing has a son in journalism school at Syracuse. The kid was at the Pipline protest when the woman was hit by the concussion grenade. He gave his Dad a full story about what went down that day. I'm hoping his story lands somewhere, maybe the SU magazine... I haven't seen shit except from the"fake" news sites which we are not supposed to trust. There is a role for journalists, but I don't know if there is an outlet.
Colorado Public Radio tracked down
the "King" of fake news sites.
He feels some remorse, but he's making $30,00 a month to ease his conscience.
"Coler, a registered Democrat, says he has no regrets about his fake news empire."
The pipeline story is amazing. ALL of my info comes from FB posts forwarded by friends
And basically as soon as I post that, the Washington Post comes out with a multi page article on the story.
Up until today, it felt as though the press was completely ignoring this ongoing story.
It may be that they've been forced to cover it now, after all this time.
We have a deadline now that the Gov't has spoken. It will be THE STORY for the next few days.
Bloom County has had the best commentary on this. Social media is driving the news cycle now I guess witness the pipline shutdown. The optics of shooting veterans in 2016 are worse than shooting veterans in 1932.
... ... or kids on a college campus in 1970.
The brilliant Anthony Bourdain explains it
You're a liberal. What should liberals be critiquing their own side for?
The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now...
The self-congratulatory tone of the privileged left—just repeating and repeating and repeating the outrages of the opposition—this does not win hearts and minds. It doesn't change anyone's opinions. It only solidifies them, and makes things worse for all of us. We should be breaking bread with each other, and finding common ground whenever possible. I fear that is not at all what we've done.
A few years back you were on Real Time with Bill Maher and part of the discussion was about people living inside their own bubbles. What do you think of Bill Maher?
Insufferably smug. Really the worst of the smug, self-congratulatory left. I have a low opinion of him. I did not have an enjoyable experience on his show. Not a show I plan to do again. He's a classic example of the smirking, contemptuous, privileged guy who lives in a bubble. And he is in no way looking to reach outside, or even look outside, of that bubble, in an empathetic way.
Aw, you're just saying that because he agrees with you.
Me too. ;)
I work in a factory with fellow union employees who are conservative republicans and vote republican no matter what, which a lot of times was not in their best interest. (Yet, they would scorn anyone who drove a non Chrysler/Dodge product into the parking lot and even maybe turn it over on its side).
There is absolutely no talking to them about it. None, zip. Its God and country all the way. They are not interested in hearing anything different. I work next to them and sometimes I have tried to say things like since Reagan, unions have been in big trouble because of republican politicians voting yes on bills that are anti-worker/union. These are people who voted republican again even after Indiana passed the right-to-work law. OMG, don't even try to reason with them, they will not listen.
I don't try anymore. Yes, I know I am in my own bubble, and I know that it makes me a big outsider to the people I live and work with. I will not talk at all about my ideas, it gets me in trouble around here.
I have had co-workers like that - the Narcissist, a huge one -- and it's the
most annoying thing in the world.
vote republican no matter what, which a lot of times was not in their best interest
I hear this one a lot and I think it's a misinterpretation of how voters operate.
Culture > practical considerations, every time
And here's a very personal example. If Trump gets rid of the H1B Visa program, I will DOUBLE my salary in a year and be basically set for life. This is not a joke. The H1B Visa program has kind of unfairly targeted my area of expertise, and mainly in big metropolitan areas where I am.
In fact it's *one* of the reasons why I wound up shit out of luck a few years back. After the bubble burst we had a combination of 500,000 fewer IT jobs in the country and about 300,000 H1B Visa IT workers still competing for the rest of them.
Ask anyone in a big corporation in the NY/SF metro area. "Oh, the IT department? It's like the UN over there. Indians, Chinese, Russians..."
Now does that mean I should, very obviously and clearly, vote for Trump?
I think you think NOT, right?
Exactly how it works for most voters. They seize on one or two issues that directly pertain to them, and dismiss everything else. Even if the candidate only hinted at the issue, or didn't, but their buddy/club/news article said the candidate would.
Most people seem to believe that "their" candidate secretly agrees with what they believe, and when the candidate claims to be against those beliefs, it's for political reasons or whatever.
To most of my friends, Clinton and Obama were secretly in favor of gay marriage all along. In Clinton's case, right up to 2013.
I have had co-workers like that - the Narcissist, a huge one -- and it's the most annoying thing in the world.
I hear this one a lot and I think it's a misinterpretation of how voters operate.
Culture > practical considerations, every time
And here's a very personal example. If Trump gets rid of the H1B Visa program, I will DOUBLE my salary in a year and be basically set for life. This is not a joke. The H1B Visa program has kind of unfairly targeted my area of expertise, and mainly in big metropolitan areas where I am.
In fact it's *one* of the reasons why I wound up shit out of luck a few years back. After the bubble burst we had a combination of 500,000 fewer IT jobs in the country and about 300,000 H1B Visa IT workers still competing for the rest of them.
Ask anyone in a big corporation in the NY/SF metro area. "Oh, the IT department? It's like the UN over there. Indians, Chinese, Russians..."
Now does that mean I should, very obviously and clearly, vote for Trump?
I think you think NOT, right?
Oh God NO! Trump is maybe going to do a lot of business and industry a lot of good....all over the world. Probably mostly for him and his family though. What I don't get is how anyone believes him. Hes already gone against several of his promises. I hope he does get rid of the H1B visa (if just for you). Do you believe he will? Do you believe Trump is not part of the 'establishment', as so many who voted for him, feel? My stepson believes that he will put a 30% tariff on imports, because he said he would. Do think he will be able to do that?
My stepson believes that he will put a 30% tariff on imports, because he said he would. Do think he will be able to do that?
Trump has clearly taken lying to a whole new level. However, history demonstrates that people who do this often have significant short term successes. Because they can do the completely opposite. The opposition does not expect it. And supporters of these types of people are willing to accept anything as true.
Reagan cut taxes. He said so. So it must have happened. Reality- taxes increased. But that requires learning facts instead of spin. Reagan increased taxes and got so many to *know* he reduced taxes.
Doing something completely different from what was said creates the element of surprise. One constantly praises Putin and his ego while doing what? Interesting will be if Trump follows through on his lies. Or does what most every informed politicians is saying - Putin is a threat that must be confronted. Will he do so while still praising Putin? Liars play both sides very well. But only for so long.
Via the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the authority to levy tariffs.
~
Trump will not alter the H1B Visa program.
Trump talked to Silicon Valley leaders two weeks ago and he sucked their dicks really hard on TV at the end of it. It was a very surprising, un-Trump moment. (about a minute in, on the video at that link)
I'm pretty certain all they asked was please don't change the H1B Visa program. Please make it bigger, if anything, was what they all said.
And it's fine, really; I don't know for sure, but I
think the H1B Visa program improves America. Even if it doesn't improve my particular place in America.
I would not vote for anyone on the basis of what's going to happen to the H1B Visa program and hence I would be considered to be voting "against my best interests".
Guess I'm dumb.
Via the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the authority to levy tariffs.
~
Trump will not alter the H1B Visa program.
Trump talked to Silicon Valley leaders two weeks ago and he sucked their dicks really hard on TV at the end of it. It was a very surprising, un-Trump moment. (about a minute in, on the video at that link)
I'm pretty certain all they asked was please don't change the H1B Visa program. Please make it bigger, if anything, was what they all said.
And it's fine, really; I don't know for sure, but I think the H1B Visa program improves America. Even if it doesn't improve my particular place in America.
I would not vote for anyone on the basis of what's going to happen to the H1B Visa program and hence I would be considered to be voting "against my best interests".
Guess I'm dumb.
In no way, shape or form, do I think you are dumb. As a matter of fact, I love the way you think and the way you express it, and appreciate it. I was not entirely certain of the tone or implication in your post, so my reply may be not that we'll thought out.
Thank you P&M! (S'all good, I didn't take it that way!)
The brilliant Anthony Bourdain explains it
You're a liberal. What should liberals be critiquing their own side for?
A few years back you were on Real Time with Bill Maher and part of the discussion was about people living inside their own bubbles. What do you think of Bill Maher?
So I watched an episode of Anthony Bourdain
Parts Unknown last night. A self-described North East liberal, he went to New Mexico and showed a deep appreciation of culture, food culture, gun culture, rural culture, native culture, Spanish culture, hybrid culture, all culture. When I think about where we are right now in our cultural bubbles, I see this attitude as the cure. I remember civics classes when I was a kid, they celebrated America and Americans. Somewhere along the way our politics lost room for other ways of being. Our diversity could be our strength but the left needs to know that diversity is broader than race and gender, it is cultural.
The pig roast is important as well.
(Yet, they would scorn anyone who drove a non Chrysler/Dodge product into the parking lot and even maybe turn it over on its side).
Do they not know Chrysler is owned by Fiat - an Italian company?
IMO - Trump is either going to be a disaster or a champion for the country.
Right now, I call it at about 70-30 respectively. Keep in mind I predicted Hillary would win in a landslide.
My father claims they said "all the same things" about Reagan when he was elected. I think he's living a revisionist history, but I was too young to remember myself, and too lazy to try to find evidence of lack.
But the things they said about Reagan didn't become close to how bad he was for the working man.
Reagan probably is a decent template for how they will handle Trump after he leaves. Ignore everything he does, and name a bunch of things after him so he seems great.
It's how Trump has led his life up to now already, so they've got a head start.
But the things they said about Reagan didn't become close to how bad he was for the working man.
Reagan did not undo what Jimmy Carter (actually the Fed) did to fix the economy. Interest rates were raised to 20% in the late 1970s. Those high interest rates were particularly hard on debtors - ie working man. Maintaining high rates until the mid 1980s fixed the economy. That was good for the working man. It undid so much damage created by Nixon and his war. He paid for it by subverting American currency and long term economic growth. A 'silent majority' inherited what they did not speak out against. Nixon was bad for the working man.
How many working men saw damage created by Nixon when he was creating it?
It is not possible to judge what is coming by viewing the past. We have never had a president who makes decisions on knee jerk emotions. We have never had a president who will routinely lie. And then even deny he said that. We have never had a president who says he will do one thing and then intentionally does something different.
We can only believe what he says - not what he is going to do. None of those previous president did that. We have no reliable idea what is coming.
We have no reliable idea what is coming.
Whoa, I just agreed with tw!
As a DC person, I can tell you that Trump's inauguration is basically completely unplanned compared to the 6 or 7 I have seen before. It's in two weeks and we still don't know if there will be any balls going on that shut down parts of the city. Normally the convention center across the street from my office is booked by now and Secret Service has started informing us that we will need ID to access our building in the day or two leading up to the day.
I just had a conversation with my son's sax tutor. He's in the Marine band. He knows the band will be doing something that day, but he doesn't know what. Parade? Probably. Ceremony? He doesn't know. He says it's always been nailed down by now.
I don't know what this can tell you about a Trump presidency. Maybe just that he has absolutely no organization in place to do this stuff and that he's completely overwhelmed.
Will there even be an inaugural ball? A single one? Normally there are a half a dozen or so.
:cuss: :frog: :f207: :frog: :cuss:
As a DC person, I can tell you that Trump's inauguration is basically completely unplanned compared to the 6 or 7 I have seen before. It's in two weeks and we still don't know if there will be any balls going on that shut down parts of the city. Normally the convention center across the street from my office is booked by now and Secret Service has started informing us that we will need ID to access our building in the day or two leading up to the day.
I just had a conversation with my son's sax tutor. He's in the Marine band. He knows the band will be doing something that day, but he doesn't know what. Parade? Probably. Ceremony? He doesn't know. He says it's always been nailed down by now.
I don't know what this can tell you about a Trump presidency. Maybe just that he has absolutely no organization in place to do this stuff and that he's completely overwhelmed.
Will there even be an inaugural ball? A single one? Normally there are a half a dozen or so.
Maybe if all you libtard cucks would stop lying about him in the crooked media!!
Maybe if all you libtard cucks would stop lying about him in the crooked media!!
Yeah. Fox News and the other Murdoch media does that too much.
Berlusconi in Italy used similar crooked media so do so much harm to the Italian economy. Fox News is so crooked at to now be called Trump TV. It is amazing how crooked media makes possible pathic leaders such as Berlusonci, Trump, and Elaine May. Last one makes Sarah Palin look intelligent.
Trump will not alter the H1B Visa program.
Hmmm, but the deal may be altered in other ways...
Trump signs an EO stopping all refugees for 120 days, and all visa holders from seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya) for 90 days.
Google orders any of its green card or H1Bers from those countries, that are overseas, to fly back to the US:
Google Recalls Staff to U.S. After Trump Immigration Order
This is odd because H1Bers are not
refugees; the average H1Ber salary in the US is 75K*. I worked with one who was investing in a lot of land back in India, and would be considered upper class there.
Anyway, the seven countries represent a small fraction of all H1Bers. Four out of five H1Bers are Indian or Chinese*. Still, when stories like this are in the news, it may cause employers to think twice before bringing in H1Bers.
Or it may cause them to defiantly hire more of them. (Instead of hiring lesser-paid/older IT workers (like me) and training them.) We don't know. Whichever way the wind blows.
* [SIZE="1"]citation:
US Gov "Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers"[/SIZE]
this post was edited for accuracy 6 minutes after postingNow all that having been said, and my fiscal position very much affected by it, my best guess is that it is not Good for America(TM).
My other best guess is: the hysteria over it will be far more damaging to the country than the actual act.
One admissions officer from a medical school reported that they have been instructed to toss out all applications from those seven countries, regardless of anything else, because they cannot guarantee that the 90 days will not be extended.
When you're a politician, you understand that the hysteria is the act, just like the economy runs on belief and not reality. If everyone goes apeshit, it doesn't matter if he never intended for it to happen--part of his job is to predict that it would happen.
Pie explains it this week
[YOUTUBE]miE-kwQM0mo[/YOUTUBE]
As an American have the right to hate anyone I wish, regardless of race color or creed. :p:
That guy's one note is boring. . His point that it's wrong and ironic the way Milo's speech was responded to, *by some* is correct. His hyperbole and relentless stereotyping and assigning the actions of the vanishingly small minority to "the left" is wrong.
I question HIS motives, maybe HE'S a plant for "the right".
Sounds dumb, eh? . Just like when he does it. Dumb and boring. I dare him to fill that gap in the market and just report the facts. I doubt he'd find sufficient ratings OR catharsis though.
That guy's one note is boring. . His point that it's wrong and ironic the way Milo's speech was responded to, *by some* is correct. His hyperbole and relentless stereotyping and assigning the actions of the vanishingly small minority to "the left" is wrong.
I question HIS motives, maybe HE'S a plant for "the right".
Sounds dumb, eh? . Just like when he does it. Dumb and boring. I dare him to fill that gap in the market and just report the facts. I doubt he'd find sufficient ratings OR catharsis though.
Generalization was the word I was searching for. The broader his claims of responsibility, the more diffuse his focus and the subsequent search for a solution to the problems he complains about. "The left is responsible for Donald Trump's election". Riiight. Well, we should tell the left to not do that, hm? Ridiculous.
Sounds like you're doing just as he said, trying to shut him down for voicing his opinions by hurling insults (dumb, boring, ridiculous) and labels (stereotyping, plant). Seems that it's going to be a long learning curve for many that these things didn't work, clearly didn't work last time and that insults don't work anymore, labels don't work anymore.
Guess who's going to give Trump a second term. I'm not going to name names; but, his initials are BigV. :p:
NYT technology writer Farhad Manjoo attempts to shut off Trump news...
and finds that he cannot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/trump-news-media-ignore.html
It wasn’t my aim to stick my head in the sand. I did not quit the news. Instead, I spent as much time as I normally do online (all my waking hours), but shifted most of my energy to looking for Trump-free zones.
My point: I wanted to see what I could learn about the modern news media by looking at how thoroughly Mr. Trump had subsumed it. In one way, my experiment failed: I could find almost no Trump-free part of the press.
But as the week wore on, I discovered several truths about our digital media ecosystem. Coverage of Mr. Trump may eclipse that of any single human being ever.
Eight. More. Years.
The new president doesn’t simply dominate national and political news. During my week of attempted Trump abstinence, I noticed something deeper: He has taken up semipermanent residence on every outlet of any kind, political or not. He is no longer just the message. In many cases, he has become the medium, the ether through which all other stories flow.
Manjoo then recounts a list of haters who
just gotta hate, as all media inserts mostly anti-Trump messages into the nation's biggest television shows, the Grammy, the Golden Globes, the Super Bowl. He's not just everywhere, he's the only topic anyone is thinking about, anywhere!
Leaving no oxygen for other important news:
On most days, Mr. Trump is 90 percent of the news on my Twitter and Facebook feeds, and probably yours, too. But he’s not 90 percent of what’s important in the world. During my break from Trump news, I found rich coverage veins that aren’t getting social play. ISIS is retreating across Iraq and Syria. Brazil seems on the verge of chaos. A large ice shelf in Antarctica is close to full break. Scientists may have discovered a new continent submerged under the ocean near Australia.
There’s a reason you aren’t seeing these stories splashed across the news. Unlike old-school media, today’s media works according to social feedback loops. Every story that shows any signs of life on Facebook or Twitter is copied endlessly by every outlet, becoming unavoidable.
This is why it happened, and this is why it's going to happen again in four years. Every day a glorious orgasm of Trump across all channels. We just can't think about ANYTHING else.
How will it work out? Maybe there will be crisis/crises which continue to cause people to mainline the hatery. Or maybe we slowly become fed up, and take up a cultural diet of anything else. Maybe disco will come flying back and everybody will get laid. Clams on the half-shell, and rollerskates! Rollerskates!
Or, maybe there will be a war. Disco or war, which one are you hoping for? Either way, I can't wait.
I expect war, m'self. Either us with a foreign power (my money's on China), or us with ourselves. Or both.
I think the Republicans will almost certainly impeach before the first term is out--Mr. Clod says about 6 months before the midterms, I say sooner than that--because then they get to be the saviors for turning on their own guy and all is forgiven, plus, they could theoretically get more than 8 years out of whoever steps in to replace him. Whether or not they agree with the hatred of Trump, they don't like someone they can't control, and they have the majority votes to bring him down whenever McConnell and Ryan decide it's time.
But an impeachment will bring riots. Also, the lack of impeachment will bring riots. There's no easy way out.
plus, they could theoretically get more than 8 years out of whoever steps in to replace him.
My recollection is that 10 is the maximum number of years any pres can have. So if a VP becomes pres with 3 years left to serve in that term, that person can only run for reelection once. It would have to happen after January '19 to get two more additional terms.
According to Wikipedia, the text is:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Ah! You learn something new every day.
So Cheney, Bannon*, and Martin Sheen would only be allowed one term each.
* Assuming he lasts 2 years.
How will it work out? Maybe there will be crisis/crises which continue to cause people to mainline the hatery. Or maybe we slowly become fed up, and take up a cultural diet of anything else. Maybe disco will come flying back and everybody will get laid. Clams on the half-shell, and rollerskates! Rollerskates!
Or, maybe there will be a war. Disco or war, which one are you hoping for? Either way, I can't wait.
I listened to CHIC - "Good Times" again last night. It was sooooooo gooooood
Disco, or war? Trade war doesn't count! Or does it!?
Putting it out here first, just because it's Disco or War does not mean it will be appropriate for a D candidate to use "Good Times" in 2020 like Clinton 1 used "Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomrrow)" in 1992. Maybe by 2024, but "Good Times" needs to organically come back first. (Which it will. It always will.)
"Don't be a jerk! Participate!"
This is why it happened, and this is why it's going to happen again in four years. Every day a glorious orgasm of Trump across all channels. We just can't think about ANYTHING else.
How will it work out? Maybe there will be crisis/crises which continue to cause people to mainline the hatery. Or maybe we slowly become fed up, and take up a cultural diet of anything else. Maybe disco will come flying back and everybody will get laid. Clams on the half-shell, and rollerskates! Rollerskates!
Or, maybe there will be a war. Disco or war, which one are you hoping for? Either way, I can't wait.
I coulda wrote this today! Still no war and still no disco; but I'm starting to see a few signs of people becoming fed up.
Obvious from text messages that The Don was doing same corrupt deals that he did all his life - even back when he was a liberal. Quid Pro Quo - Ukrainian military aid withheld until they agreed to help his reelection campaign.
Some text messages stated to stop texting and use the telephone - because participants knew how corrupt their plans were.
No wonder The Don is so friendly with dictators and so hates American allies. No need to say why. That is blatantly obvious.
How does one get on Trump's enemies list? Simply be honest.
"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions, the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."
Right, and the tooth fairy will verify them doing that. :rolleyes:
"Right, and the tooth fairy will verify them doing that."
Yep, and to the exact same degree that you & yours will verify that Trump is doin' impeachable crap.
They have already been verified but he won't be impeached because the Senate would block that in a heartbeat.
Meanwhile Congress, the so many domestic and foreign news services, and so many professional civil servants have an obligation to let us know how routine corruption is now at the highest level of government. Making the current president more corrupt than Nixon.
Mueller report makes one thing obvious. All those crimes that The Don wanted done (in Volume Two) did not happen only for one reason. His people repeatedly refused to implement them.
Ask a result, The Don must continuously fire people. When an American Ambassador to Ukraine bluntly noted and obstructed what became illegal activities, then she was fired. Since then, America has never had another ambassador to Ukraine.
I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
As a result, the U.S Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, was removed.
Trump cannot find someone dishonest enough to execute illegal Quid Pro Quo. Which explains why his personal attorney (Rudy Giuliani), illegally acting as an agent of the State Department (the State Department said so), must do what Trump wants.
Extremists in the Cellar say that is good. And post personal insults to prove it. Insults are what a corrupt mafioso Don does to prove only he is right and everyone else is wrong.
So many responsible people are doing their job. And not using personal cheapshots to justify facts - as even some Cellar extremists do in every post. And that is called acceptable behavior. Must be. Trump does it every day.
That's show biz.
How long for the movie?
Can we call it "Watergate - The Sequel"?
It's going straight to TV and being called Eight Is Enough - The Latter Four.
... and being called Eight Is Enough - The Latter Four.
Nixon used a similar expression. "Four More Years!" We know what that really meant.
It meant the Vice President could take over as President and give his former boss a presidential pardon so they'd all live happily ever after. People love a story with a happy ending.
It meant the Vice President could take over as President and give his former boss a presidential pardon so they'd all live happily ever after.
But first they had to get rid a VP who was also corrupt and that nobody wanted for president. Coincidence or intentional?
Divine intervention.
They should've started an investigation into collusion.
It is said Congressional Republicans' favorite form of exercise is running for the hills. It may also now be said Congressional Democrats' favorite form of exercise is mental masturbation.
I should write to the Ventura County Star expressing these sentiments, the better to eyepoke the prejudiced antiTrumpkins who write in.
Or, maybe there will be a war. Disco or war, which one are you hoping for? Either way, I can't wait.
I propose a culture war upon Disco. It was music for zombies the first time, if even you wanted to call such mediocrity music. No call for a resurrection now.
Disco didn't make me go punk... but decades later, it had something to do with me going bagpipe.
Chic is on worldwide tour. What with the coronavirus, everybody took their eyes off Iran. Right now the meter is leaning towards disco. In two months, it'll change again, so watch this thread.
I believe the term 'dead as disco' should be enforced. Strictly.
It's amazing how many chose to be deplorable.
Dude, you should have listened to yourself. Are or were you really going to accept the dictum of Washington's Least Convincing Blonde about who's deplorable and who has ethics? Particularly in view of her personally casting aside ethics and embracing criminality for lucre? She's in it only for the money and the power that comes with it.
People more ethical than yourself -- less left-wing too -- oppose you, argue against you. Is that the handbasket you want to get in?
I believe the term 'dead as disco' should be enforced. Strictly.
Even when it was popular, it didn't have much of life in it.
No wonder I eventually took up the bagpipe. Hey, I said it last September.
(I don't think "That Old Time Rock & Roll" actually fits in the bagpipe's nine-note range, though.)
(The
Flintstones theme does; so does
The Lumberjack Song.)
Dude, you should have listened to yourself. Are or were you really going to accept the dictum of Washington's Least Convincing Blonde about who's deplorable and who has ethics? Particularly in view of her personally casting aside ethics and embracing criminality for lucre? She's in it only for the money and the power that comes with it.
People more ethical than yourself -- less left-wing too -- oppose you, argue against you. Is that the handbasket you want to get in?
Hey UG, your reflexive use of ad hominem attacks is deplorable.
I have know you to be able to communicate without such language. I have also know you to make sensible, interesting and informative posts. But the hatin' poisons every post it touches. As a Democrat, as a patriot, as a citizen and a voter striving to be better informed, I find information from you and others whose opinions and knowledge is different from mine valuable. If you share what you have to offer, I will share my open mind. But I won't drink poison just because I thirst.
Particularly in view of her personally casting aside ethics and embracing criminality for lucre? She's in it only for the money and the power that comes with it.
And Trump isn't? Congress critters aren't? Explain to me her criminal behavior.
People more ethical than yourself -- less left-wing too -- oppose you, argue against you.
That's your opinion but do you really think I give a flying fuck what chorus the MAGA muppets are singing this week? I mean really? Nah, you can't be serious. :headshake
Hey UG, your reflexive use of ad hominem attacks is deplorable.
I have know you to be able to communicate without such language. I have also know you to make sensible, interesting and informative posts. But the hatin' poisons every post it touches. As a Democrat, as a patriot, as a citizen and a voter striving to be better informed, I find information from you and others whose opinions and knowledge is different from mine valuable. If you share what you have to offer, I will share my open mind. But I won't drink poison just because I thirst.
This guy gets it.
Bruce, by his own testimony, is not a friend to a virtuous society. You shouldn't cry ad-hominem when a party -- that is not mine -- jettisons ethics and has apparently French-kissed and taken French leave of its senses. These too are no friends of a free and virtuous society -- yet they find supporters here in this hostility. Party loyalty is not a substitute for principles. Too many now haven't had that idea.
I do not "reflexively" ad-hominem anyone. I do reprove manifest ethical lapses, and none shall deny me. I would just as readily reprove yours if any, and can one be any more fair?
And Trump isn't? Congress critters aren't? Explain to me her criminal behavior.
That's your opinion but do you really think I give a flying fuck what chorus the MAGA muppets are singing this week? I mean really? Nah, you can't be serious. :headshake
HRC -- never someone to vote for -- has not been indicted for her felonious handling of classified information, the usual penalty for which is ten years and ten thousand dollars. You know what a full ten years in Leavenworth would mean for someone in her demographic. Indicted or no, investigation or no, the suspicion at the least will ever be hanging over her, of a pattern with the gray cloud of scandal ever hanging over the Clinton White House. Of course, there is also that career-opening, er, success in cattle futures. Paid off something like a thousand to one, purportedly? On the *very first try at it,* without continued or previous investment success of the same sort and field? People oddly and conveniently dead? Victim intimidation that is on record as performed by this monster of a woman? Greed and radicalism explains some few of these things, no?
Trump has lost over a billion in net worth while President, as I said -- and you falsely want to forget. That's a sign of prejudice, which I do not share and cannot be made to. Prejudiced thought I regard as lower than mole scrotums, than which there is little less respectable or elevated, not so?
As for the rest of your brainless defiance-bellow, well... all else being equal, would you
not want to participate in making America greater, a successful and benevolent enterprise? Seriously, I would -- and you want to be critical of it to the point of denying it utterly :mg: Allow me to remark that this argument is not comprehensible, and I suspect it is abysmally unenlightened as well. Certainly it's a poor career being a public chew toy owing to being unable to appreciate improvements, and insisting on decrying improvements as offenses. But on their own testimony, so many Democratic partisans are just that dumb now. Dunning-Kruger effect.
That may be a nutshell explanation for public personalities Paul Krugman, the famous economist whose predictions have never been borne out, and Senator Charles Schumer, the genocide-friendly (he's gun-hostile) Jewish guy.
Team Donkey from its own words is knowable as Team Stupid; too stupid to trust with helming the republic or enhancing the economy. Their institutional suspicion of the making of wealth has been growing since the 1960's and is now rank, in both overgrowth and stink.
Not satisfactory.
Bruce, by his own testimony, is not a friend to a virtuous society.
Bruce is a known real world good guy. I know him by his actions. He is not someone who believes magical thinking will help people, he helps people. Adopt his ethic.
I believe him to be sincerely well-intentioned.
I'll esteem him virtuous once he goes libertarian. But he will need to do that to do good politics rather than statist politics. It'll clue him about why I use "statist" as a swearword.
And all this time I thought xoB was just another run-of-the-mill whacko extremist. Goes to show how appearances can be deceiving over the internet.
Whacko it outta the park, maybe! ;)
The danger of the 'net is that as far as it is concerned, you are exactly what you say you are.
But not what other people say you are, grandiloquent protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Bruce is a known real world good guy. I know him by his actions. He is not someone who believes magical thinking will help people, he helps people. Adopt his ethic.
I am in complete agreement with Griff.
"Adopt his ethic." I have.
But not what other people say you are, grandiloquent protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Definitely not. Especially not when I'm the best at grandiloquence to be found here.
Definitely not. Especially not when I'm the best at [strike]grandiloquence[/strike] pomposity to be found here.
FTFY
[YOUTUBE]GLG9g7BcjKs[/YOUTUBE]
Fucking Donald Trump. The left is responsible for this result.
)))
I'll esteem him virtuous once he goes libertarian.
Sure, but you seem to be religious about it.
Politics isn't a religion. It is an interest.
And something I like about Trump and other Republicans (particularly the less-insider sorts, DJT being a madly and greedily resented outsider and outside force that is just what the free republic needs after generations of the opposite) is how they on occasion think like libertarians. There has been for four generations a cry for running the government in a businesslike fashion. Trump has answered that cry at long last. Four more years will answer the cry even better. Plus sequelae -- really putting the end to the era of big government, that we all may be the wealthier, breathe the freer, and make our sexual desirability the greater. Makes America the greater too, hmm? See, my eyes are open -- and there are those who are so philosophically bankrupt that they have run out of substantive rebuttals, have exhausted their antifreedom arguments and sallies, and ad-hominemwise tell me I'm "pompous" for being open-eyed. This is a dimbulb's attempt at saving face, and it is contemptible. When you can't, simply can't, brighten the free republic, you're a mess.
There has been for four generations a cry for running the government in a businesslike fashion.
Likewise, and equally valid, is the urge to have plumbers conduct brain surgery.
Category errors are a thing.
He's right, look at all the successful businesses running a trillion dollar deficit.:rolleyes:
He's right, look at all the successful businesses running a trillion dollar deficit.
What has been keeping GE alive for many decades? A massive deficit (directly traceable to management that used cost controls to stifle innovation) has been masked by selling off division after division. As if selling assets is acceptable profit (only business school graduates promote that lie).
Previously posted were other GE assets sold to mask massive losses. Add to that list latest sales of their biopharmaceutical division to Danaher Corp and their aircraft leasing division to Apollo (an investment retirement fund). Then a massive deficit, that has existed for decades, again is not obvious to stock brokers and other bean counters. America is selling off to mask losses created by business school (bean counter) graduates who routinely stifle innovation. Innovation being the only source of actual profits, growth, and jobs.
Examples of people, with a plumber's education, getting rich by selling off America. And so the expression "going down the drain".
Companies running massive deficits to mask unproductive management include Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. First indication starts with underfunded pension funds. Which has been using a 'tax cut inspired bubble' on the stock market to mask increasing financial losses.
Sears used sale of Kmart to play fast and loose with money games. Now on the list is Xerox trying to do same with HP. How curious. Those are the same games that Trump used. Including four Atlantic City casinos that never once earned a profit. But Trump is an honest man. So that must not be a concern.
Politics isn't a religion. It is an interest.
It absolutely is a religion. Everyone gets to be irrational and accuse everyone else of being irrational.
That's what religion is.
Likewise, and equally valid, is the urge to have plumbers conduct brain surgery.
Category errors are a thing.
You've committed one, and were not forced into it.
The Trump administration's philosophy is what running government in a businesslike fashion looks like -- and whaddaya know; it worked. People who think this can't work, or for some reason shouldn't (I can't think of any) aren't thinking like libertarians. They ought to start.
It absolutely is a religion. Everyone gets to be irrational and accuse everyone else of being irrational.
You're going to fuck yourself up badly with that philosophy. Don't do it. I don't.
You're going to fuck yourself up badly with that philosophy. Don't do it. I don't.
Okay.
The Trump administration's philosophy is what running government in a businesslike fashion looks like -- and whaddaya know; it worked.
Yes it did work. He stiffs contractors - at least 3500. He defaulted on loans from every major bank. The mafia also calls that 'just business'. Amazing how only honest people see that reality. While corrupt people love the way he cheats and lies.
Also amazing how the most easily brainwashed resort to profanity to justify their misinformation.
Indeed? Is what you want to call "stiffing contractors" actually, say, a lawsuit over nonfulfillment by said contractors? Cranks are so very seldom reliable reporters, O Tantalus. My mentality being manifestly non-crankish puts you in a very deep hole.
Absolutely no one who is taken seriously points to the Present POTUS as stiffing anybody, and unprejudiced people have taken notice. Persons of prejudice can't afford to take that notice lest they have to turn in their sheets, hoods, and red-white-and-black brassards. At least then these emperors of penile encephaly will have no clothes.
Absolutely no one who is taken seriously points to the Present POTUS as stiffing anybody
No one who worships this potus takes anyone seriously who reveal his crimes.
You don't know what the fuck your talking about. He's a dyed in the wool criminal, the con man tax cheat thief you wish you could be.
https://theweek.com/articles/783976/brief-history-trumps-smalltime-swindles
3. A paint seller and event workers in Florida
After putting in long hours for a special event at Trump National Doral, a Miami resort, 48 servers had to sue for unpaid overtime. The settlements averaged around $800 per worker, but went as high as $3,000 in one case. On top of that, a paint shop owner named Juan Carlos Enriquez also sued Trump's business, claiming he never got the final payment for a paint shipment to the same resort. In 2017, after a three-year legal fight, a court found in Enriquez's favor, and ordered Trump's company to pay the final $32,000, plus $300,000 in legal fees.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/jose-lambiet/article91353232.html https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/rush-limbaugh-health-experts-are-part-deep-state-and-shouldnt-be-trusted
It's probably wise to consider that when these guys say "Deep State" they're talking about anyone who may have expertise in their field and is a government employee. Government incompetence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we elect anti-government folks to run the government.
https://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Risk-Michael-Lewis/dp/1324002646 From Fortune Magazine:
Why U.S. Law Makes It Easy for Donald Trump To Stiff Contractors One of the more startling moments in Monday night’s presidential debate was the one where Donald Trump appeared to admit that one of his business secrets is an unsavory one: He stiffs his contractors.
