The Loyal Opposition
I am the loyal opposition.
Tonight I attended my first Women's March, 10 Actions in 100 Days meeting. It was great. Last Sunday, when BelovedDaughter and I went for our hike, she asked me what I'd done yesterday (Saturday) and was a bit shocked to learn that I hadn't marched with the 100,000 *other* loyal opponents in Seattle.
Tonight it was about sending direct messages to our representatives in Congress, being specific, to the point, personal. If they're going to represent us, they'd better know how we feel about the issues. And they will. It's important to recognize that absent any communication from the constituency, an elected official will have cause to think they're doing a good job and truly representing their people. By the time they're in office, the consent of the governed is presumed.
Well, fuck that shit.
I DO NOT consent to much of the madness going on in (the other) Washington lately. The executive orders, while legal, are not expressions of how I believe our country should act. The basket of deplorables representing the bulk of his cabinet nominations are unacceptable. Mattis and Tillerson are the least revolting but Jeff "good people don't smoke marijuana/good ol' boy" Sessions and Beverly "no public school for me or my children-ever" Voss horrify me. My representatives had better vote NO if they want to act on my behalf. Let's not get started on that clown, Perry, who wants/wanted to eliminate the the agency he's now been nominated to head. JFC.
It's **crucial** that I do my part, that I do my best to be an informed citizen. The success of our country depends on it and depends on you in the same way. Having informed myself, I will exercise my right to free speech (while it lasts, Steve "the media should keep its mouth shut" Fucking Bannon, I'm looking at you). See something, say something. This emperor has no clothes, (and no brains and no class and no maturity, I could go on) and by God, I'm going to say something.
I am the loyal opposition and I object!
[ATTACH]59257[/ATTACH]
I Object!
There's so much material here, I'm literally overwhelmed. It's a tsunami of bad decisions made by our government. I think of this thread every day. Today I'm extending it.
***
Remember Obama's "red line" comment about chemical weapons in Syria and how that ill-advised well-meant but no-room-to-maneuver played out? Badly, politically, yeah. And worse for the poor people who caught the chlorine bombs. Fucking Assad.
Anyhow.
Trump recently (well, it seems a thousand lies ago, but it really was not too far back) made his own "red line" remark in an ill-advised over-reaction to his administration's flirtations with Mother Russia.
He said (through Spicer)
Trump has "made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to de-escalate violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea. At the same time, he fully expects to and wants to get along with Russia."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C4LrbBgL4I&t=7m4s
Watch the whole thing if you're running low on bullshit. It's helpful to wind it back before the statement start to get the context of the situation, Flynn being asked to resign.
This, this after he said the opposite (shocking, I know) in the middle of the campaign. Back when he was on the campaign trail, he called for (a lot of shit including) the possibility of
recognizing the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
The question came from Mareike Aden, a German reporter, who asked him whether a President Trump would recognize Crimea as Russian and lift sanctions on Moscow imposed after its 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory. The candidate’s reply: “Yes. We would be looking at that.”
So, what the FUCK is it gonna be?
Many, many statements by Trump indicate a strong desire to [strike]capitulate to[/strike] cooperate with Russia. But using the new promise of lifting existing sanctions in return for surrendering the sovereign territory of Crimea back to Ukraine strikes me a especially fanciful, even from the fluffy head of Trump. Where's your vaunted bargain from a position of strength, Mr President?
I object to your objection on the grounds that it objectifies an object of objectification.
Would you rather Trump did a Dubya and just told Russia to Bring it on!
Trump is doing what he's good at. He can't dazzle 'em with brilliance; so, he's baffling 'em with bullshit.
It's a technique. Don't knock it, it got him elected!
campaigning is for candidates.
governing is for incumbents.
He hasn't been vested with the authority to govern the world. He's still a candidate on the global venue.
Have a bowl of fish head soup. You'll feel better in the morning.
Another worrisome item before I retire tonight. This is a first draft.
It's not only the wrong-headed actions of the Adminstration I oppose, it's the wrong-headed actions of the Congress as well. For example, the well publicized and proportionally poorly thought out actions of the
Congress to attempt to eviscerate the Ethics Committee.
House Republicans, led by Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, had sought on Monday to prevent the office from pursuing investigations that might result in criminal charges. Instead, they wanted to allow lawmakers on the more powerful House Ethics Committee to shut down inquiries. They even sought to block the small staff at the Office of Congressional Ethics, which would have been renamed and put under the oversight of House lawmakers, from speaking to the news media.
“It has damaged or destroyed a lot of political careers in this place, and it’s cost members of Congress millions of dollars to defend themselves against anonymous allegations,” Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, said Tuesday, still defending the move.
But such resolve crumbled Tuesday morning, as thousands of phone calls flooded lawmakers’ offices and both conservative and liberal ethics groups issued statements condemning the vote. Some Republicans joined in, saying the measure sent the wrong message to the public. (Internet searches for the words “Who is my representative” surged after news of the plan broke Monday night and peaked Tuesday morning, according to Google.)
What the fuck were they thinking?
Another worrisome item before I retire tonight. This is a first draft.
It's not only the wrong-headed actions of the Adminstration I oppose, it's the wrong-headed actions of the Congress as well. For example, the well publicized and proportionally poorly thought out actions of the Congress to attempt to eviscerate the Ethics Committee.
What the fuck were they thinking?
They were thinking they'd better CYA and do it fast.
The corruption continues Wilbur Ross , just confirmed , was Vice chair of Bank of Cyprus. So what you may ask since atrocities keep pouring in so quickly it's difficult to keep track of them all. Well, here's what according to various reliable sources across the Internet. Here's a snip from the DC Report:
In the midst of the Trump Administration’s many other Russian entanglements, it turns out that Wilbur J. Ross, Jr., the billionaire American investor who is one of Donald Trump’s closest advisors on trade and economics, has direct financial ties to several leading oligarchs from Russia and the Former Soviet Union or FSU.
The U.S. Senate should thoroughly investigate these ties before it votes on Ross’ nomination to be Commerce Secretary when it returns from recess next week.
Central to this inquiry is the question of Ross’s role as Vice Chair and a leading investor in the Bank of Cyprus, the largest bank in Cyprus, one of the key offshore havens for illicit Russian finance. Ross has been Vice Chairman of this bank and a major investor in it since 2014. His fellow bank co-chair evidently was appointed by none other than Vladimir Putin.
The Bank of Cyprus is just one of more than 100 direct and indirect investments that Ross listed on his U.S. Office of Government Ethics financial disclosure form last month. He recently promised to resign as Vice Chairman of the Bank and disinvest from it within the next 90 days if his nomination is approved.
Mere divestiture will not suffice here, even if it was immediate. Exiting a brothel in a hurry doesn’t explain what you were doing there in the first place.
more...
The story in the DC Report appears to be well researched and gives many cites from reliable, nonpartisan sources. Too bad Congress didn't follow the advise of the journalist who wrote that story. But then why should they? The Pussy Grabber crowd are sitting in the cat bird's seat, ready to snack on as many canaries as possible. And as we all know, no one can ever eat just one. :eyebrow:
Just look at the stunts that attention whoring President is pulling now, for his self aggrandizement, shortly before addressing a joint session of Congress:
[SIZE="4"]Trump signs historically black colleges order[/SIZE]
President Trump will sign an executive order to bolster historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) on Tuesday. The order will do this by moving the moving the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which was previously part of the Department of Education, back to the White House.
The administration says this action will encourage strategic partnerships with other agencies and outside groups by giving it greater visibility. The United Negro College Fund had requested that Mr. Trump move the Initiative to the White House and be led by a person “who reports to a senior advisor to the president,” according to The Washington Post.
Dozens of HBCU leaders gathered at the White House on Monday where they briefly met Mr. Trump in the Oval Office before meeting with Vice President Mike Pence. The order is a signal that the Trump administration plans to make HBCUs a priority, boosting Trump’s “urban agenda,” a senior White House office told reporters in a briefing.
The White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities was started by President Jimmy Carter, but the Trump administration says the office has “lost track because they didn’t have the full force of the White House behind it.” ...
... The pen-happy President will also sign two bills: the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers and Innovators and Explorers Act (INSPIRE) act and Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act. INSPIRE, first introduced by Virginia Congresswomen Barbara Comstock, authorizes NASA to encourage women to pursue careers in engineering, science, and mathematics.
The Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act authorizes the National Science Foundation to provide support for women’s entrepreneurial programs. ...
Shameless I tell ya ... shameless.
In the midst of the Trump Administration’s many other Russian entanglements, it turns out that Wilbur J. Ross, Jr., the billionaire American investor who is one of Donald Trump’s closest advisors on trade and economics, has direct financial ties to several leading oligarchs from Russia and the Former Soviet Union or FSU.
I'd be more suspicious of people with ties to trump than to Russians.
The order will do this by moving the moving the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which was previously part of the Department of Education, back to the White House.
1- to elevate blacks to positions where he can blame them for his fuckups and fire them.
2- to prevent charges of racism and backlash as DeVos dismantles the Department of Education.
Just look at the stunts that attention whoring President is pulling now, for his self aggrandizement, shortly before addressing a joint session of Congress:
DeVos didn't help him much, trying to claim HBUs were early examples of "school choice".
OMG, did you watch Trump's speech to Congress. Oh the humanity! He didn't grab even one pussy. He must've not been feeling well or something. And all his Me, me, me(s) turned into Us, us, us ... such shameless pandering. It's a good thing his daughter Ivanka was there as eye candy; or, the evening would have been a total loss.
I think his speechwriter deserves a raise.
I think his handlers all deserve a stiff drink of bourbon tonight. Putin must be applying the thumb screws behind the scenes.
This morning we're participating in a
"People Power" Livestream Event from the ACLU.
I'll take good notes and deliver my report when I return.
You'll feel better after "Placebo Power".
Feeling better is not the goal.
Of course not; but, it's what people end up settling for. Obama most recently demonstrated that there's no lasting change.
Untrue. There is continuous change. I don't like many of the changes promulgated by this administration and I'm doing what I believe is right, what I believe is best for our country. Things are changing, I want different changes.
And as far as "settling" goes, many people do settle. But I believe we get the country we work for and fight for. I'm fighting for a better country.
You can believe that if you like; but, you got the country you bargained for.
Not true, not everyone bargained for what we got. [strike]I may have not rung doorbells[/strike]... wait, I didn't ring doorbells, but I did express my opinion when possible without alienating too many people. My complacency may have made a tiny, miniscule, infinitesimal bit of difference, but living in a GOP stronghold I doubt it.
I have been subject to a steady barrage for the last ten years, I mean at least one sometimes several emails a day, how that spook from Africa is to blame for everything from ISIS to my bunions. They contain links that go to right wing websites or to sites that say the exact opposite of their claims. But most people don't question the claims just pass it on. Some of these emails will contain over a hundred addresses of forwarders. Brainwashing for ten fucking years.
People are tired and scared. I was lucky to grow up in a boom time when jobs were plentiful, unions strong, and taxes pretty fair. I retired not long after everything went to shit. I feel sorry for any kid that doesn't have a personal connection to get a good job because a degree and brains are no guaranty. People are seeing good paying jobs slipping away, and their communities/life style collapsing. So they voted Trump out of hope.
A Doctorate in history handling insurance claims? A Doctorate in maths in charge of signs in a supermarket? C'mon, that's just fucked up. That's proof that the MBA's who are running shit don't have a clue, nor care, what's good for the country. I didn't bargain for that.
Untrue. ...
Not true, ...
You can remain in denial for as long as you want; but, everyone who voted for Clinton and everyone eligible who didn't vote got the country they bargained for. That's the majority and for the most part they're just not astute enough to acknowledge perceptions of how and why. They're the clueless crusaders.
Good luck trying to renegotiate your bargain.
how that spook from Africa is to blame for everything... Brainwashing for ten fucking years.
It's only right the other side should get a chance at this!
And given their chance to be opposition, at least they don't talk about his skin color. Or anything personal really. Now, the debate is serious. There's no fear-mongering at all.
You can remain in denial for as long as you want; but, everyone who voted for Clinton and everyone eligible who didn't vote got the country they bargained for. That's the majority and for the most part they're just not astute enough to acknowledge perceptions of how and why. They're the clueless crusaders.
Good luck trying to renegotiate your bargain.
I know you're shit stirring but that statement makes you look silly. You've got it ass backwards, Trump's voters got what they bargained for, the rest of the country just suffers from the results of the bargain too.
Au contraire, mon frère. Enough Trump voters would have voted for anyone but Clinton to put another Dem in the White House. Not to mention those who could have voted; but, didn't. The bargain was made before the general election, which just ratified it.
If you're saying the Clinton boosters still don't get it, you're largely er... bigly right.
I voted for Bernie in the primary, but was only offered two choices in the general election. I couldn't vote for Trump or stay home.
If you're saying the Clinton boosters still don't get it, you're largely er... bigly right.
I'm a Clinton Booster. Explain it to me, please. What am I not getting?
I am not really sure what he's talking about but the DNC still does not appear serious about working class issues.
You can remain in denial for as long as you want; but, everyone who voted for Clinton and everyone eligible who didn't vote got the country they bargained for. That's the majority and for the most part they're just not astute enough to acknowledge perceptions of how and why. They're the clueless crusaders.
Good luck trying to renegotiate your bargain.
You can remain in denial for as long as you want but:
A) Hillary won the popular vote. Thanks to the unElectorial College, the Traitor seized power.
B) 15 separate US Government intelligence agencies agree that the election was hacked. At best, this calls into question the election of ANYONE.
That said, I do feel the official Dem party apparatus has become a little ossified. Bernie Sanders had the momentum and the votes. Had the Dems run Bernie as their candidate instead of Hillary, things might look very different today. Certainly, Sanders was/is on the side of the working man.
But that was then and in the now, I read the posts made by the Traitor's supporters on other sites, glorying in the idea that coal mining will be brought back. Not only is that economically unfeasible (at the moment), it is also a dirty industry in more ways than one. Since there will no longer be any EPA or government regulatory agencies because this hurts the "small businessman," when the time comes, Peabody coal will go about whistling while it works and miners will struggle with increasingly unsafe mine conditions and should they develop black lung, good luck finding medical care.
This is only one small example of the delusional mindset among the cons. The Dems may be ossified, but the cons have become the party of the oligarchs and their mindless followers rush after them like lemmings pouring off the cliff - democracy be damned.
I am not really sure what he's talking about but the DNC still does not appear serious about working class issues.
Democrats have a muddled message. They do not have Fox News, Laura Engles, Breitbart, Hannity, etc throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.
Republicans discovered naive and uneducated anger about taxes and debt. Clinton (a Democrat) almost eliminated debt. Republicans love to increase spending and debts - especially to enrich the rich (ie George Jr's administration is a perfect example).
Republican message says one thing. Republican actions have been opposite. By throwing shit against the wall, Republicans discovered what is believed and what they do are completely unrelated. That contradiction is acceptable to their extremists.
... A) Hillary won the popular vote. Thanks to the unElectorial College, the Traitor seized power.
B) 15 separate US Government intelligence agencies agree that the election was hacked. At best, this calls into question the election of ANYONE. ...
I bet you post that everywhere you can. Your Mexican [post=983283]handlers[/post] must be applying the thumb screws IRL.
I bet you post that everywhere you can. Your Mexican [post=983283]handlers[/post] must be applying the thumb screws IRL.
Excuse me? :eyebrow:
I pick only the most select handlers - in this case, the Russians. Their thumb screws have this really cool hammer and sickle design. It fits just... - OUCH GODDAMIT!
Democrats have a muddled message. They do not have Fox News, Laura Engles, Breitbart, Hannity, etc throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.
Republicans discovered naive and uneducated anger about taxes and debt. Clinton (a Democrat) almost eliminated debt. Republicans love to increase spending and debts - especially to enrich the rich (ie George Jr's administration is a perfect example).
Republican message says one thing. Republican actions have been opposite. By throwing shit against the wall, Republicans discovered what is believed and what they do are completely unrelated. That contradiction is acceptable to their extremists.
All true, but running as "not the Republicans" does not get the votes to poll much over 25%. Ryan's likely ACA / Medicaid train wreck opens the door for a low turnout Democrat victory but doesn't do anything for the country.
All true, but running as "not the Republicans" does not get the votes to poll much over 25%.
Solution is moderates. Gerrymandering makes it impossible for the most patriotic people - the moderates - to get elected or represented in Congress.
Increased numbers of wacko extremists in government explains why infrastructure is failing, why this nation wastes itself on wars it has no business in (Mission Accomplished, Nam, the one Trump will create because he is dumb), why new tunnels, bridges, and rails cannot be created, why coal must keep destroying jobs, and why a 2007 recession was created. Extremists were so dumb as to even hate TARP. So dumb at to attack teachers. So dumb as to know global warming does not exist and is not created by mankind. So dumb as to hate network neutrality and innovation. So dumb as to destroy research and science in space, quantum physics, stem cell, and environmental. So dumb as to believe enriching the rich is good - and trickle down economics. So dumb as to think economies prosper by inventing new financial tools. So dumb as to even advocate putting Social Security in the stock market. So dumb as to hate globalization, TPP, and George Sr new world order. So dumb as to think a V-8 engine means a bigger penis. So dumb as to believe crime is rampant - we all need bigger guns. So dumb as to think stock brokers and business school trained executives are smart - can be trusted - deserve to be paid $millions annually. So dumb as to think 85% of all problems are directly traceable to others who don't look or talk like me.
Those are extremists who protect themselves by avoiding and attacking responsible news services, history, science, and the purpose of life. Those extremists love war; hate diplomacy. Some even think Putin is a good guy. We have too many Ted Cruz in government. Unfortunately their numbers are increasing. Not the number of extremists. The number of extremists now in government.
They may even put up a statue to honor Timothy McVeigh because he attacked evil government.
What creates gridlock in Congress? Some four or five dozen wacko extremists whose whole purpose in life is to blame government for all problems. They exist to subvert government - because they were educated by soundbytes - and therefore are extremists.
Solution is moderates.
When you're right you're right. And you're right.
Sadly, there aren't so many moderates any more. Lots of partisans claiming to be moderate, but few actual moderates.
Solution is moderates. Gerrymandering makes it impossible for the most patriotic people - the moderates - to get elected or represented in Congress.
Increased numbers of wacko extremists in government explains why infrastructure is failing, why this nation wastes itself on wars it has no business in (Mission Accomplished, Nam, the one Trump will create because he is dumb), why new tunnels, bridges, and rails cannot be created, why coal must keep destroying jobs, and why a 2007 recession was created. Extremists were so dumb as to even hate TARP. So dumb at to attack teachers. So dumb as to know global warming does not exist and is not created by mankind. So dumb as to hate network neutrality and innovation. So dumb as to destroy research and science in space, quantum physics, stem cell, and environmental. So dumb as to believe enriching the rich is good - and trickle down economics. So dumb as to think economies prosper by inventing new financial tools. So dumb as to even advocate putting Social Security in the stock market. So dumb as to hate globalization, TPP, and George Sr new world order. So dumb as to think a V-8 engine means a bigger penis. So dumb as to believe crime is rampant - we all need bigger guns. So dumb as to think stock brokers and business school trained executives are smart - can be trusted - deserve to be paid $millions annually. So dumb as to think 85% of all problems are directly traceable to others who don't look or talk like me.
Those are extremists who protect themselves by avoiding and attacking responsible news services, history, science, and the purpose of life. Those extremists love war; hate diplomacy. Some even think Putin is a good guy. We have too many Ted Cruz in government. Unfortunately their numbers are increasing. Not the number of extremists. The number of extremists now in government.
They may even put up a statue to honor Timothy McVeigh because he attacked evil government.
What creates gridlock in Congress? Some four or five dozen wacko extremists whose whole purpose in life is to blame government for all problems. They exist to subvert government - because they were educated by soundbytes - and therefore are extremists.
You call them "extremists," I call them oligarchs. Citizens United opened the floodgates, allowing billionaire CEO's to buy and sell the government of the United States. Look at 45 and look at his cabinet. Billionaire CEO's all. A government run by a select group of the extremely wealthy is defined as an oligarchy - NOT a democracy.
The rabble that mindlessly supports 45 are suckled by Fox. They hate everyone who is not exactly the same skin color and doesn't hold their identical religious beliefs. They'd rather their children drop out of high school and get a great job as a coal miner in WV or in a uranium mine in NM.
Good luck EVER finding common ground with these people.
Solution is moderates. Gerrymandering makes it impossible for the most patriotic people - the moderates - to get elected or represented in Congress.
Increased numbers of wacko extremists in government explains why infrastructure is failing, why this nation wastes itself on wars it has no business in (Mission Accomplished, ...
Senator Hillary Clinton broke with the Democrats and joined the Republicans in voting to support Bush's war.
... The rabble that mindlessly supports 45 are suckled by Fox. They hate everyone who is not exactly the same skin color and doesn't hold their identical religious beliefs. ...
Nawwwwwww. They're just punishing all those fake moderates who supported Clinton.
... Sadly, there aren't so many moderates any more. Lots of partisans claiming to be moderate, but few actual moderates.
Glatt - his eyes open.
And this is sexobon Cronkite stiri... uh, edumacating the masses. :haha:
Citizens United opened the floodgates, allowing billionaire CEO's to buy and sell the government of the United States.
Two types exist. For example, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many billionaire friends have channeled their efforts into addressing these and other problems.
Don't confuse them with a different breed who believe the purpose of life is to enrich yourself - even at the expense of others. They routinely campaign (lobby) to manipulate laws for personal gain. For example, openly advocated destruction of Glass-Steagall. And now want to eliminate many laws created because the rich successfully created a 2008 meltdown. Where do they recruit supporters? From extremists. From people who only know what their emotions tell them to believe.
I took an all day trip to Philly to understand many outside a Democratic convention. Bernie Sanders supporters insisted the Federal Reserve was a private corporation that manipulated our currency. Then insisted it must be true even when confronted with facts. Extremists. People literally told what to think. No different from the so many who insisted stock markets must be liberated from evil regulation. Or that global warming does not exist. Or who knew Saddam was conspiring to attack America only because Cheney, et al said so.
Some call them ultra liberals or neo-conservatives. I call them extremists. They only know what they are told to believe. Never demand the always required reasons why. Ignore numbers. Insist responsible journalists lie. They know because they 'feel' it must be true. Emotional like a child. Often do not learn how to think through a problem.
They are easily manipulated by the others. Such as a different breed of rich who believe the purpose of life is profits - to enrich yourself.
Does Limbaugh really believe fiction he regurgitates? Or does he just do what keeps him in his private jet and oxycontin? Either way, he promotes extremism by telling the many (who do not think for themselves) what to believe. After all, how do you get so many to advocate the massacre of 5000 servicemen in Iraq? And then deny they advocated it? Did they want that? Or were they so easily manipulated into becoming an extremist?
Citizen United simply made it easier for the richest to literally tell adults who are still children what to believe - how to think.
John McCain personally watched verbal arguments in the Supreme Court for Citizen United. Then said he wished just one justice had once run for a political office - even dog catcher. Because they did not get it.
Citizen United simply made it easier to manipulate emotional - adults who are still children.
Senator Hillary Clinton broke with the Democrats and joined the Republicans in voting to support Bush's war.
That's why it took years and years of constant FUD about her to get the Republicans to hate her. Politically, she's pretty much a Reagan-era Republican. I'm not sure how that doesn't count as moderate in today's environment.
Your opposition should be directed at Congress... :(
I'm not sure how that doesn't count as moderate in today's environment.
It does; sexo is replying to tw and pointing out that tw's definition makes her extremist.
It does; sexo is replying to tw and pointing out that tw's definition makes her extremist.
Far from it. But my comments say why sexobon has extremist tendencies. He routtinely replies to everything I post with his emotions and insults.
Extremist - just like the Donald.
And like Hillary, by your definition.
Far from it. But my comments say why sexobon has extremist tendencies. He routtinely replies to everything I post with his emotions and insults.
Extremist - just like the Donald.
And like Hillary, by your definition.
Far from it, tw. But my commrnts say why tw has hypocritical presentation. He routinely applies double standards and fallacies.
Loser - just like Hillary.
Far from it, tw. But my commrnts say why tw has hypocritical presentation. He routinely applies double standards and fallacies.
Loser - just like Hillary.
Cheapshots and insults based in emotion. An extremist with a Donald Trump, Geert Wilder, Marine Le Pen, and Boris Johnson temperament.
why new tunnels, bridges, and rails cannot be created, why coal must keep destroying jobs, and why a 2007 recession was created. Extremists were so dumb as to even hate TARP. So dumb at to attack teachers. So dumb as to know global warming does not exist and is not created by mankind. So dumb as to hate network neutrality and innovation. So dumb as to destroy research and science in space, quantum physics, stem cell, and environmental. So dumb as to believe enriching the rich is good - and trickle down economics. So dumb as to think economies prosper by inventing new financial tools. So dumb as to even advocate putting Social Security in the stock market. So dumb as to hate globalization, TPP, and George Sr new world order. So dumb as to think a V-8 engine means a bigger penis. So dumb as to believe crime is rampant - we all need bigger guns. So dumb as to think stock brokers and business school trained executives are smart - can be trusted - deserve to be paid $millions annually. So dumb as to think 85% of all problems are directly traceable to others who don't look or talk like me.
And like Hillary, by your definition.
How is any of that Hillary? That defines Hilary's nemesis, Rush Limbaugh.
Extremist even hype hate of drug addicts - while even being one. Is that Hilary? No. That is the convicted oxycontin addict - Limbaugh.
Which then raises another question. Are extremists routine liars?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/03/15/fox-news-poll-315/
interesting poll...
Sanders would seem to be the Centrist while Pelosi and Ryan are the extremists.
I know I consider McConnell to be a piece of shit, and I wondered if it's only because of the bubble I'm in. Apparently there are a tremendous number of people in the same bubble. He's got the lowest approval rating of anyone in this poll.
I heard a retired coal miner going off on Mitch, no love there.
What if we all took, as the central tenet of our civic duty, to identify politicians whose policy positions actually corresponded the strongest to the people they are tasked with representing, and accordingly voted for those politicians.
For example, in 2016, there was a candidate whose platform overwhelmingly corresponded to the middle-of-the-road positions of the majority of Americans--including, but not limited to traditional, working-class families. That candidate was Bernie Sanders. Although it has come to light that his candidacy was squashed by the corrupt DNC (which was patently obvious in the first place), it is also true that legions of Hillary supporters jumped on the fraudulent "Bernie Bro" narrative, driven by fervent opposition politics, and the espoused belief in picking a "safe" choice.
Pick the politician who stands for what you believe in, motherƒuckers, and forget all the political nonsense that "smart" people are supposed to weigh against their own best interests.
I heard a retired coal miner going off on Mitch, no love there.
Coal miners (especially WV region miners) are an angry lot that deserve to be angry. However they fail to direct their anger at the reason for their plight.
Name an innovation in coal in the past 40 years. Even new coal plants in TX are thermodynamically less efficient than one built in Philadelphia in the 1960s. Coal industry even rejected the IGCC method of making coal cleaner and more efficient. Coal industry hates innovation. So employees suffer even in mines where management even turned off or refused to repair fans necessary to eliminate methane explosions. We now know these decisions were made at highest level of management.
So they blame their declining living standards on environmentalists, politicians, free market economics, demands from other states for cleaner power, and McConnell? It would help if they first learned why their industry must be downsized. If a domestic industry fails to innovate, then free markets demand its destruction.
Maybe they should blame free markets?
Miners demonstrate why so many are angry. They don't first learn reasons for their plight. They seek soundbyte answers. Soundbytes - especially when not quantified - are akin to a lie.
I find myself standing with flint. I don't hear anything so outrageous from Bernie and he's been known to seek common ground. Maybe our politics are so angry because of individual cognitive dissonance, the parties represent their donors and folks are having trouble divorcing themselves from the old party habit.
"Bernie Bros" may have been exaggerated, but they existed, and it's easy for small numbers of assholes to have an outsize impact on social media. As a Bernie supporter myself, I was pleased when Sanders himself rejected them (not "denied their existence"; rejected them).
I picked Bernie, and when he lost the primary I picked the candidate he supported.
We are facing unprecedented political theater, from all sides, to distract us from the fact that Bernie almost mounted a legitimate challenge to the corporate stranglehold on the American political system.
"Bernie Bros" may have been exaggerated, but they existed, [END QUOTE]
Sure, and people who supported Hillary, but were total cvnts, certainly must have existed, but there wasn't a
full court press by the entire mainstream media, to
define them as a group, and
force the narrative that they defined the candidate.
This was a political assassination, in which certain members of the public were gleefully complicit.
It's too bad Bernie is a million years old. I might have hope that he could run again if he wasn't. Does he have 8 years left in him? I'm doubtful.
Elizabeth Warren does. So...she'll probably die in a plane wreck before too long, and we'll get stuck with Cory Booker, another corporate sell-out who will run on long-winded opposition to Trump and, hey, he's not white.
In 8 years she will be the same age as when Bernie ran.
Far from it, tw. But my commrnts say why tw has hypocritical presentation. He routinely applies double standards and fallacies.
Loser - just like Hillary.
Cheapshots and insults based in emotion. An extremist with a Donald Trump, Geert Wilder, Marine Le Pen, and Boris Johnson temperament.
Hypocritical turnabout and fallacies based in the delusions of a developmentally impaired loser (whose candidate lost to DONALD TRUMP!).
Cause that loser's gonna whine, whine, whine, whine, whine
And he's gonna pine, pine, pine, pine, pine
So we're just gonna write, write, write, write, write
We'll write him off, we'll write him offLearn to stop admiring yourself in a mirror.
tw - 0, sexobon - ∞ and beyond
In 8 years she will be the same age as when Bernie ran.
Oh, yeah?
Well...
Shut up!!
You can remain in denial for as long as you want but: A) Hillary won the popular vote.
There is no popular vote. Thats not the way this works. There are 50 individual state elections where by the electors are chosen to represent the people in those states in voting for the president.
Come on, you sound like you don't understand what the popular vote is. Saying there is no popular vote is just wrong. We don't elect the President and the Vice President from the result of the popular vote, but that doesn't mean there is no popular vote. Come on.
I don't know that it's right to say anyone won the popular vote these days when so many people feel they're simply choosing the lesser of two evils.
It's like asking people if they'd rather be locked in a room with a rattlesnake; or, a king cobra. If more people say a rattlesnake, do you say the rattlesnake won a popular vote even though rattlesnakes aren't particularly popular?
Seems to be a rather meaningless statistic.
And if you tallied up the meaningless votes from each state, wouldn't each state's vote totals be equally meaningless, thus each state's electoral votes also meaningless? Dividing it into states, or not, doesn't make it any more or less meaningful if we're speaking to whether people have valid motivations for voting in a two-party system.
eta:
Couldn't it be considered MORE meaningless, by state, whereas people are aware that they are gaming the electoral college system, not voting their individual conscience?
Within the present system, electoral votes have intrinsic value. There's a known consequence. Not so with the popular vote. Its outcome is too variable to be meaningful in a timely manner.
Come on, you sound like you don't understand what the popular vote is.
Dividing it into states, or not, doesn't make it any more or less meaningful....
Remember, I didn't vote for him. But both of you clinging to this popular vote myth is ludicrous. It worthless - Its nothing at all - zero, zilch - nada.
You are simply hanging on to the "but she won the popular vote" as if it had some value.
She lost TO DONALD FUCKING TRUMP! She IS that AWFUL. It happened. Its real and whining about a meaningless, irrelevant, worthless nothing isn't going to change it.
One reason the popular vote is meaningless is because the candidates elections aren't run to win the popular vote. C'mon, you both know this. This isn't hard. You guys sound like children with the "But most of the other kids did it too." excuse. Trump is a douche - we all get that, but please leave this popular vote bullshit alone.
The popular vote is meaningless when it comes to who won. However, politicians often try to claim that they have a mandate, or that the people support them. Usually, the popular vote and the electoral college are aligned, so this shorthand is valid. In this case it is not.
You might well say that whether they have a mandate or whether the people support them is also irrelevant. Superficially that's true - they're in power either way - but they wouldn't try to claim the mandate if there wasn't some value in having it.
I don't know that it's right to say anyone won the popular vote these days when so many people feel they're simply choosing the lesser of two evils.
...
Seems to be a rather meaningless statistic.
And if you tallied up the meaningless votes from each state, wouldn't each state's vote totals be equally meaningless, thus each state's electoral votes also meaningless?
Turns out, if you read the thread, I wasn't even talking to
classicman. But, please,
classicman, do show me how smart and superior and mature you are by projecting your image of a big, bad liberal boogeyman on me, telling me what "I'm clinging" to, that I'm "whining," and using d!ckhead statements like, "this isn't hard."
You know what? F U C K YOU, buddy. Keep your temper tantrums to yourself.
Your political philosophy has empowered the most garbage presidency in US history--it must be embarrassing, and I feel sorry for conservatives whose party has been hijacked, but... you guys did it to yourself. Try to pick up another hobby besides still bitching about how much you hate Clinton.
I found this to be a good read.
There were, of course, many other culprits in the election’s outcome. Comey, the Kremlin, the cable-news networks that beamed Trump 24/7, Jill Stein, a Clinton campaign that (among other blunders) ignored frantic on-the-ground pleas for help in Wisconsin and Michigan, and the candidate herself have all come in for deserved public flogging. But the attitude among some liberals toward the actual voters who pulled the trigger on Election Day has been more indulgent, equivocal, and forgiving. Perhaps those white voters without a college degree who preferred Trump by 39 percentage points — the most lopsided margin in the sector pollsters define as “white working class” since the 1980 Ronald Reagan landslide — are not “deplorables” who “cling to guns and religion” after all. Perhaps, as Joe Biden enthused, “these are good people, man!” who “aren’t racist” and “aren’t sexist.” Perhaps, as Mark Lilla argued in an influential essay in the New York Times, they were turned off mostly by the Democrats’ identity politics and rightfully felt excluded from Clinton’s stump strategy of name-checking every ethnicity, race, and gender in the party’s coalition except garden-variety whites. Perhaps they should hate us.
These voters are so adamantly opposed to government programs that in some cases they refuse to accept the fact that aid they already receive comes from Washington — witness the “Keep Government Out of My Medicare!” placards at the early tea-party protests.
J.F.C.
:facepalm:
They're angry, pissed off at the government because of the bullshit they've been hearing about crooked politicians, about government waste, about congressional ownership by lobbyists, about millions to study the sex life of some fucking African frog, about Maplethorpe pissing on Christ and calling it "art". I don't blame them, I am too.
They don't have time to fuck around on the internet finding nuances, they want someone to clean the whole fucking house. That's why they voted for Trump, that's what he promised to do. Sure he promised 76 trombones but at least he was addressing them, and not the east/west coast pansies. They're not bad people, they are fed up.
projecting your image
You know what? F U C K YOU, buddy. Keep your temper tantrums to yourself.
Yep ... Thats what I did. Uh huh. Talk about projecting.
Temper tantrum? lol All I've seen is a 3 month long temper tantrum from most of your team.
Rock on buddy, I didn't vote for him either.
I found this to be a good read.
I found *this* to be a similarly good read.
All world views are not inherently equal. Conservative thinking is, by definition, bent on conserving the status quo. It is often regressive. A shrinking, a backward movement, a return to previous points in cultural, political, and intellectual development.
The fact that humanities departments are exceptionally lacking in conservatives and dogmatically religious people highlights this reality. Psychology, poetry, sociology, political science. People who have wrestled with the human condition, the human soul, literature and art, are the least likely to give credence to backwards ideas that are diminishing to human value and human dignity.
"Conservative thinking is, by definition, bent on conserving the status quo. It is often regressive. A shrinking, a backward movement, a return to previous points in cultural, political, and intellectual development."
Which is not the worst idea when 'progress' takes you down untenable roads or to repugnant places. Backing up when you've reached a dead end is sensible, yes?
"Conservative thinking is, by definition, bent on conserving the status quo. It is often regressive. A shrinking, a backward movement, a return to previous points in cultural, political, and intellectual development."
Which is not the worst idea when 'progress' takes you down untenable roads or to repugnant places. Backing up when you've reached a dead end is sensible, yes?
If you're intent is to back up, then to set off in a new direction in search of a better avenue of progress then yes, if you are writing off progress as a failure, and just receding a halt, then maybe not.
IMHO
Sometimes there's no 'new direction' or 'better avenue'. Sometimes makin' do with what you got is the best thing to do.
Let's take the ACA as example...
I guess I'm in the minority here, but my health care (when and why I go to the doctor, how often I go, how I pay for it) is my business and no one else's.
All I want from government is final arbitration (not first, not intermediary, final) in disputes between me and the doc (or insurer or hospital), and I want congress (along with cleanly and wholly repealing the ACA) to make it so if I, livin' in LA., find an insurer in Alaska offering what I want, for the price I want, I can transact with that insurer.
Beyond that, the government should be (as it should be on a great many things) silent and neutral.
Repeal, and do not replace (do not seek a 'new direction' or 'better avenue'...just back up).
Instead: we're gonna end up with what we have (or a tweaked, and still crappy, version of it).
Progress, sometimes, ain't.
Personally I’m not interested in a female president for the sake of "diversity." Putting a woman in the white house in 2020 won’t mean that gender equality has arrived. We’ve had 45 presidents. It’s going to take 45 women serving as president before we even have a chance to reach parity.
Do you get it now?
Yes. Politics Makes You Stupid; author of piece is a keen example; Trump wins 2020.
If you believe that what you have is the best that can be, the top of the curve, then travelling in any direction is going to be downhill.
The ideal system that you desire, is not what is and not what was, so you wish to progress to that state of being.
What I suggest, to me, isn't progress...it's deregulation.
I make no claim what I suggest is 'better', only that I prefer it.
I have no doubt many of those folks I saw (and heard) in footage from town halls ("without the affordable care act I'd be dead!" "without obamacare my >insert loved one< would be dead!" "without the ACA I [or my >insert loved one<] can't afford life-saving/-enhancing medicine/treatment!") would be truly in the shitter if what I suggest came to pass.
Here's the thing: each and every one of these folks operates out of self-interest, just like me. Explain why I must set aside my priorities in favor of theirs?
Unlike many of the 'hillbillies' in Bruce's piece, I'm not on the dole, am not subsidized, am not beholden (which is to say: I'm not a hypocrite).
I put more in than I take out, I ask for nuthin' except decent roads to drive on and to able to transact with others without jumpin' through hoops. Instead, I have crap roads (which I pay for) and grief tryin' to simply get what I want (my nice little catastrophic insurance, the one declared sub-standard by the ACA).
No, I'm not after 'progress'...I want a retreat from it (the philosophy of it).
So you don't believe, "There, but for the grace of god, go I".
Fuck those Hillwilliams and poor folk who's sweat dug the coal and picked the cotton to make the economy flourish and your life better.
Fair enough, that's your privilege. But I consider it an Ayn Rand selfishness I can't agree with.
My college apartment mate and best friend at the time, worshiped Rand, Atlas Shrugged was his bible, and we had many long arguments about it. The funny thing is it was my money that allowed him to not have to live in the dorm. :haha:
I put more in than I take out, I ask for nuthin' except decent roads to drive on and to able to transact with others without jumpin' through hoops.
What makes you think that less regulation would
decrease the number of hoops you have to jump through? Many regulations are big hoops upstream that eliminate many small hoops that people downstream would otherwise have to jump.
And everybody is downstream of more things than they are upstream on, even people who are at the head of their particular stream.
Heck, on food alone, the number of hours saved by the average person not having to research every vendor and their supply chain (even if they had the authority to demand the information needed for that research) offsets a good portion of their tax liability.
It's easy to think how nice it would be if there was no regulation on the things
I do; it's harder to take into account having to deal with all the other unregulated assholes.
Agreed, without regulation the multi-nations would be in the snake oil business.
Yes. Politics Makes You Stupid; author of piece is a keen example; Trump wins 2020.
Spoken like a true privileged individual. I didn't think of it first, I just stole it first in this thread:
Equality Feels Like Oppression When You're Used to Privilege
I'd prefer to believe you *got* the point of the article and are just cherry picking your quotes to reinforce your confirmation bias. Otherwise I'd have to conclude that your narrow quote is a reflection of you not getting the thrust of the article, that tolerance and diversity for their own sake, for a mathematical balance of opposing points of view are not that important.
The context of the quote you excerpted was that there's a very, very, very long history of IMbalance in many areas of our society and when puckishly asked about when we'd be "even" or "enough" the follow up was your quoted. Do you think a woman and a man have equal ability to judge, to lead, to protect and defend the Constitution? If so, then how is it that we've had 45 male presidents in a row? Can't be luck, really, or coincidence. It's sexism and to say anything otherwise is just wrong. The author's larger point is that our society has a very long history of inequality to "metabolize".
The quality of an idea should be a measure of its value. Discuss it, debate it, challenge it, test it. Measure it. And by many measures, the inequality in our society is
yuge. I pointed out that the two articles were similar because they both pointed out that being tolerant and open minded doesn't mean I can feel the breeze blowing through my ears. From the article: "Not all ideas are equal". They're not. And a lot of the ideas I hear coming from the conservative right are crap. I'm not obliged to give them equal credence, since the facts don't support that position.
xoB's article suggested that a progressive might want to stop tilting at windmills trying to persuade their political opponents with facts, and the article I linked to suggests that tolerance is not giving all ideas equal time and that we in America have a long way to go, still, before the truths held to be self evident, the equality of all men, endowed by our Creator in our Declaration of Independence are realistically, measurable, available to all.
Spoken like a true privileged individual.
Oh you figure you can counter any argument by talking about the arguers sex and race.
And you also think you're in the "smart" group.
Well pick one, cos you can't have it both ways!
Do you think a woman and a man have equal ability to judge, to lead, to protect and defend the Constitution? If so, then how is it that we've had 45 male presidents in a row? Can't be luck, really, or coincidence. It's sexism and to say anything otherwise is just wrong.
That's true! (Gosh when did you discover it? What a
find! OMG did you read history books or something??? Oh you didn't??? Well, that makes it more amazing!!!)
And the piece's answer, and your answer, to that is to have an equal amount of reverse sexism.
Feminism used to be about equality. Now it's about inequality, ensuring women are superior for 240 years. You know, for "justice". We can only assume that the real problems of feminism and racism are entirely gone now that we are concentrating on righting the events of all of history. Society has changed -- and is continuing to change -- but that's not enough. Let's visit the sins of our forefathers because maybe we don't feel bad enough about it. And if you don't agree? You must be sexist and racist. We don't call it that, we call it "privileged". And even if you grow up in a poor, integrated neighborhood and wind up working at a ghetto pawn shop, that's your tag!
And we get to win every argument about it just by NAMECALLING! We think that's a smart way to go about this. Well,
FUCK YOU,
~ and ~
TRUMP 2020. Guaranteed.
Because of people like you.Society has changed -- and is continuing to change -- but that's not enough.
It only changes
because people say it's not enough.
"Hillwilliams and poor folk who's sweat dug the coal and picked the cotton"
And the chiiiildren, you forgot to dredge up the chiiiildren.
:neutral:
Mountain Mule,
Up-thread you wrote...
"15 separate US Government intelligence agencies agree that the election was hacked."
...this is news to me!
I'd like to read more about this hacking (you'd think I'd be more on top of this kinda stuff...I mean, that vote-casting and/or -counting was hacked, this is BIG news! I am ashamed... :( ), so if you could direct me to the proper sources, I'd greatly appreciate it.
I think she's referring to the Russian connection, rather than the voting.
Russian connection?
What Russian connection?
And: you mean the election wasn't hacked? That is: voting and/or vote-counting was unadulterated?
Then why would Mule say the election was hacked?
I don't believe that anyone is literally mentally incapable of distinguishing direct vote-count manipulation, i.e. voting machine hacking (which NO ONE is suggesting happened) from other forms of Russian election influencing (which EVERYONE* agrees happened).
It disingenuous, and embarrassing.
*
United States Intelligence Community
Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security
Release Date:
October 7, 2016
...
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
...
Meh, I'd rather Mule have opened the door, but this...
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations."
...works
Russia didn't hack the election. The election was above board, honest, and true. All parties -- as far as the election itself -- played the game by the rules in place.
Trump won, fair, square, and all the finaglin' (cryin' and protests) won't change that.
No, what Russia did is what all adversaries do. This is not surprising, unexpected, or anything other than business as usual.
And what Russia do? Stole information, stole FACTs, facts damning of, and embarrassing to, the DNC, Clinton, Clinton proxies, and democrats in general.
Now, to my way of thinkin': knowing facts -- regardless of the source -- is always a good thing. And I wonder: if the American press had actually done its job and exposed these facts (instead of Russia snd wikileaks) would folks be claimin' the press 'hacked the election'?
My point here: Russua's theft of FACT is one thing, the democrat powers-that-be bein' rat bastids (which is what the facts show) is another.
And speakin' of rat bastids: republicans in congress done pissed on us (me, anyway) again.
They took how many show votes (with no damn problem) to repeal the ACA (knowin' each and every time there was a veto waitin' at the other end) but now 'we just can't get a thing done! *handwring, handwring*.
Fuckin' repeal that piece of shit...cut it out like a tumor THEN sit down and do the hard work of figuring IF it shoukd be replaced.
If the answer is 'yes': start from scratch, do it right...make sure the whole thing fits on ten pieces of paper as a whole, and mebbe one in summary.
Now, back to Mule's claim of a hacked election...
Two descriptors fit: Liar, or, Nutjob.
Or mebbe a little of both.
(my nice little catastrophic insurance, the one declared sub-standard by the ACA)
What? Thats just about what every Bronze plan is - as dictated to us through the ACA.
I'm 54, don't quailfy for hardship status, don't qualify for subsidies.
Too old and not poor enough.
Yeah, the ACA is a friggin' blight for me.
Leave me be...fuckin' de-regulate, un-monitor, disentangle me.
The quality of my insurance has become virtually worthless unless I contract a major disease, virus etc or am in some major accident. Meanwhile my costs have tripled.
Oh you figure you can counter any argument by talking about the arguers sex and race.
And you also think you're in the "smart" group.
Well pick one, cos you can't have it both ways!
That's true! (Gosh when did you discover it? What a find! OMG did you read history books or something??? Oh you didn't??? Well, that makes it more amazing!!!)
And the piece's answer, and your answer, to that is to have an equal amount of reverse sexism.
Feminism used to be about equality. Now it's about inequality, ensuring women are superior for 240 years. You know, for "justice". We can only assume that the real problems of feminism and racism are entirely gone now that we are concentrating on righting the events of all of history. Society has changed -- and is continuing to change -- but that's not enough. Let's visit the sins of our forefathers because maybe we don't feel bad enough about it. And if you don't agree? You must be sexist and racist. We don't call it that, we call it "privileged". And even if you grow up in a poor, integrated neighborhood and wind up working at a ghetto pawn shop, that's your tag!
And we get to win every argument about it just by NAMECALLING! We think that's a smart way to go about this. Well,
FUCK YOU,
~ and ~
TRUMP 2020. Guaranteed. Because of people like you.
Hey Undertoad.
There's a lot going on here, a lot going on in the country and in my head. I want to try to sort out some of it. It's not all super clear, I'm gonna try and I hope you follow along.
First of all, I consider you a friend. I value what you've provided for me and my friends and family here. Thank you for that. I also thank you for engaging and arguing with me on the topic. Your thoughts and ideas are interesting and I find them important to help me understand what the fucking fuck is going on around here *waves at the country and the society, hell, the whole world*.
Let me start by answering one of your questions. Yes, I am smart. I'm smart enough to see our fucked up history. And I'm empathetic and sympathetic enough to feel the pain of the inequality and unfairness of what has happened and what is still happening. I am not a member of all of the groups that I feel this way about; for example, I'm not a woman, of course. But I know women who've been treated unfairly, women I care about and women I don't know but I still get the injustice. I still feel the compulsion to fight against it. There are plenty of other groups that fit this same pattern. A common aspect is injustice, unfairness, prejudice, and power.
I want to address a couple more of your questions and the words you've put in my mouth.
No, I do not
...figure you can counter any argument by talking about the arguers sex and race.
Nor have I done so. That's stupid, it *is* namecalling and it's ineffective at best.
My response was to you for incorrectly summarizing the thrust of the article as a political piece having to do with ... y'know what. It is a political piece. And there's a lot there about stupidity. About the stupidity of hyperfocusing on (relatively) small, unimportant but flashy topics, topics important to those with power and privilege and paying scant attention to topics that affect huge sections of our population (women, non-white people, poor people)--but notice they are groups with less, maybe no power or privilege. That is stupid.
Please note, not you, Undertoad, are stupid. Not Trump voters are stupid. Our collective preference to focus on dumb shit and shrug off important, widespread, but unattractive strongly negative shit, is stupid.
The examples of this ABOUND around us. They're not all in politics. Look at the news this week. USA Women's Hockey, World Championship is happening soon. And the story around that event is that the Women's team earns $1000/month, for six months, every four years. And we have the champion fucking team. The women fly economy and the men's team flies business class. I don't have a cite, but I'm confident the financial numbers are valid. What the fuck is up with that? How is this right? Why is that? Why should we accept that?
How about another example from the political news. Did you see that picture tweeted by Mike Pence about sitting with the Freedom Caucus? A group of forty or so mostly older, mostly whiter, *all* men, discussing key components affecting women's health. Why are there no women in the room? Why are no women being included in the decision making process touted and celebrated? Another good question, why don't these guys fucking notice?
These are just a couple specific, contemporaneous examples. I know you, all of you can find a thousand more. As the article I linked to states, I'm fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression.
"The piece's answer, my answer is to have an equal amount of reverse sexism."
Your words, not mine. Not the author's. And they're wrong, that's not the answer. While we're at it, there's no such thing as reverse sexism or reverse racism. We've covered this elsewhere. Judging the worth of a person based largely or solely on their gender or race is still sexism or racism. It's *all* backwards thinking. And stupid.
So. Namecalling. Fine, knock yourself out. Be outraged, be petulant. You may be free from bias. You may be living your life based exclusively on the content of your character and the merit of your skills. It's possible that you're that rarest creature, the 100% completely self bootstrapped individual. If so, then why arent you using those talents to help the others around you less fortunate? Why aren't you using those talents and that experience to share with the majority of other people who remain unmoved either through ignorance or ennui?
There's work to be done. I'm in a position of privilege, power, and perception. I have the means, motive, and opportunity to change things. I can't unsee them, and now I can't leave them unchanged.
... I'm in a position of privilege, power, and perception. I have the means, motive, and opportunity to change things. ...
Not particularly interesting since you had all that before the last presidential election; but, it'll be entertaining to watch you try.
Keep us apprised of your progress. We always enjoy hearing from the loyal opposition.
Let me start by answering one of your questions. Yes, I am smart. I'm smart enough to see our fucked up history. And I'm empathetic and sympathetic enough to feel the pain of the inequality and unfairness of what has happened and what is still happening. I am not a member of all of the groups that I feel this way about; for example, I'm not a woman, of course. But I know women who've been treated unfairly, women I care about and women I don't know but I still get the injustice. I still feel the compulsion to fight against it. There are plenty of other groups that fit this same pattern. A common aspect is injustice, unfairness, prejudice, and power.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
I'm not just talking to you Biggie, I'm talking to all my lefty friends everywhere when I say,
we get it, you fucking care. Please, don't say any more. We know.
You know who really cares? Even makes you look bad, in the caring department? Tom Cruise.
"Being a Scientologist, you look at someone and know absolutely that you can help them. ...being a Scientologist, when you drive past an accident, it's not like anyone else when you drive past. You know you have to do something about it because you know you're the only one that can really help.
"But that's what drives me. I know that we have an opportunity to really effectively change people's lives and I am dedicated to that. I am absolutely, uncompromisingly dedicated to that."
Tom really cares very hard, and people say he is uniquely and energetically empathetic.
[SIZE="4"]
And that is why he should be setting public policy.
[/SIZE]
The examples of this ABOUND around us. They're not all in politics. Look at the news this week. USA Women's Hockey, World Championship is happening soon. And the story around that event is that the Women's team earns $1000/month, for six months, every four years. And we have the champion fucking team. The women fly economy and the men's team flies business class. I don't have a cite, but I'm confident the financial numbers are valid. What the fuck is up with that? How is this right? Why is that? Why should we accept that?
Okay, first of all -- y'only needed to ask "why" once there, at the end, not four times --
The answer is, nobody gives a flying puck about Women's Hockey. I'm sorry that, as your unpolitical example, you chose
sports, where a lot of the point is seeing the very best in human performance, and women are ruled right out of that in most sports.
To put it another way, there is no "Men's Hockey". It's just Hockey, and these days if a women is the best at her position, she would surely make the team. I'm real sorry that there is more interest in "sports" than there is in "women's sports" although for now there is still less interest in seeing the top human potential
as limited by gender. Perhaps someday there will be. I don't think it is a necessary factor in creating an less sexist culture.
You know what there is no money for? "Old People's Hockey". You get to a certain age, you're just ruled out! Nobody even questions this! Nobody even notices!
How about another example from the political news. Did you see that picture tweeted by Mike Pence about sitting with the Freedom Caucus? A group of forty or so mostly older, mostly whiter, *all* men, discussing key components affecting women's health. Why are there no women in the room? Why are no women being included in the decision making process touted and celebrated? Another good question, why don't these guys fucking notice?
? I'm sure they noticed. Be hard not to notice. I've been at Freedom events (20 years ago) and noticed. Why would you say they didn't notice?
But why-why-why? I would imagine cos there were no elected women interested in the Freedom Caucus.
Also, there are few women interested in construction. Women are something like 4% of carpenters.
Women, it turns out, are more interested in college. Millions more women than men in college, ratio is about 55-45 last I checked. One question asked is, so what? Is there a "problem" with men? Do they have to be specially considered in order to get them to be interested in college? Is this a societal problem? OH NO what's gonna happen?? Oh shit, nobody even really notices! Does nobody care?!
It's possible that you're that rarest creature, the 100% completely self bootstrapped individual. If so, then why arent you using those talents to help the others around you less fortunate?
I spend time with them, and guess what, they don't give a shit about identity politics. They don't give a shit about Obamacare; they're steaming angry that they have to buy the shittiest tier Aetna and pay huge deductibles. They don't give a shit about gun laws when a gun-related background check from 15 years ago stops them from getting a corporate retail job and now they're dumped on by society. They don't really give a shit about Black Lives Matter, because they are taking public transportation three hours a day, and hoping there's enough policing in the city.
They are generally, but not all, Trump voters, and they believe you don't actually give a shit about them, and I believe that too.
There's work to be done. I'm in a position of privilege, power, and perception. I have the means, motive, and opportunity to change things. I can't unsee them, and now I can't leave them unchanged.
Good lord.
Okay, first of all -- y'only needed to ask "why" once there, at the end, not four times --
Y'know your unsolicited advice on my writing style is a waste of breath.
Y'know your suggestion to alter the sentences that way change what I intended to say.
Y'know the way I said it was perfectly effective since you understood what I wrote.
Y'know I'm fucking with you.
Right?
Is that better?
...and I'm the only one that can really help.
This is the reason you think he should set political policy? In the immortal words of Michael Bloomberg, God help us. But perhaps, hopefully, you were being sarcastic.
I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves. I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.
Should the same logic apply here? Hopefully.
I think Tom Cruise and Donald Trump are equally unqualified to set public policy, but I can disregard Tom Cruise with impunity; not so with Donald Trump.
The whole point about inequality and unfairness, maybe you get it, maybe you don't. Maybe you get it and you don't give a shit. Maybe you're focused on other people who are also suffering. Regardless, I'm not trying to educate you and I'm stopping trying to persuade you. If you're interested in my ideas, you'll ask. In the meantime, I wish you well in your work with the people who you care about most.
As for your hope that I'll stop talking about it, sorry. I'm gonna keep talking about it, here and in other places. Put me on ignore if it's that painful to you.
Never take anything in Politics personally. We're all trying to figure this out.
Never take anything in Politics personally. We're all trying to figure this out.
FUCK YOU,
~ and ~
TRUMP 2020. Guaranteed. Because of people like you.
This was personal. If that wasn't your attention, maybe I should be offering style pointers to
you.
Yeah, it was in response to "Spoken like a true privileged individual." :flipbird:
Are you not used to people actually responding to you when you think those words?
If I may interject, if not fuck you I will anyway. .
Cruise is extremely wealthy, has plenty of free time, has alienated plenty of movie ticket buyers with his connection to "The Cult". His chauffeur or one of his body guards may well be a publicity agent. Yes saying, ya know? :eyebrow:
Do I have the timeline right? I'm just going from memory here, so please correct me where I am getting it wrong.
In the olden days, when I was a wee lad and before that, the Senate was a bit more above the political fray than the rest of politicians. They were respectable. when a President nominated a Supreme Court Justice, the Senate confirmed them because they were moderate nominees.
Sometime in the mid 80s or so, it must have been the elder Bush, nominated a guy named Bork. Bork was moderately conservative. The Democrats controlled the Senate, and they worked hard to block Bork. They succeeded and ushured in a new era of hardball politics with Supreme Court nominees. Why did the Democrats do this? Was a liberal justice being replaced by a conservative one and that was their objection? It must have been.
A decade or two went by, and opposing parties blocked more and more Presidential nominations at all levels of government. It came to a head early in Obama's first term when the Republican minority in the Senate refused to confirm any of his nominees and there was a historically large number of vacant seats throughout the courts and government and nominees not being placed in them.
So the Democrats, who controlled the Senate, went for the "nuclear option" for the lower court vacancies, and changed the Senate rules so that only a simple majority was needed. This stopped the Republicans from their obstruction, and a bunch of seats were filled. The Supreme court nomination process was not changed. A 2/3 majority vote was still needed there to block filibusters. But then a midterm election gave the Senate to the Republicans, and they resumed blocking Obama nominations.
Then a year ago, Scalia died, and President Obama nominated his replacement. That piece of shit, Mitch McConnell, refused to to even consider the nominee and the vacancy lasted for almost a year.
The Democrats are pissed that they didn't get to fill that seat, so they block the Trump pick. So McConnell, that piece of shit, blows up the remaining filibuster rules and the nominee will go through today.
That was a bit long winded, but the pattern I'm seeing is nothing new. These guys are getting worse and worse. They are not working for the good of the people. The way the system is supposed to work is that the president nominates people from his own party who are moderate enough to get votes from the other side. Everyone says they hate extremists, but they continue on the path of extremism.
I think looking back on it, the tipping point was the Bork nomination. That was when the tone changed.
He was a Reagan nominee. The Senate debate was televised and the public told their senate critters they did not want Bork. Especially after he said the biggest mistake the court had made was Brown vs the Board of Education.
But back to your point, yes that was the start of the obstructionism. Although I think the last one above the political fray was King George. ;)
Tomorrow I want to talk about the Trump administration's decision to suspend a rule that was to go into effect today raising the standard for financial advisers' obligations to their clients. The standard that would have gone into effect but is now on hold, is called a "fiduciary standard". This means that the adviser has a duty to recommend what is in the best interest of their client. That may, or may not be what is most profitable for the adviser.
How is this in the best interest of the people, or in the best interest of the country?
I've heard some of the rationale behind the opposition to the suspension of the new higher standard, saying it would make doing business more expensive. Ha.
Financial planners are under-regulated? Here is a "problem" that ONLY affects the upper middle class. It's not exactly the 1%, but it's the 10%-35% who care about this, but good on protecting them and stuff, they are the new Democratic Party after all. Since they are the electorate, they are going to need to be focused on, in the next few decades. Well not "need". They don't "need" but sure enough they will get attention!
You got a financial planner Biggie? Corporate or independent?
I already went and signed a shitload of papers to prepare for this. The guy was bitching about the workload but was aware of the reasoning, and glad they were doing something to clean up his profession.
Normally, the "I don't care if someone's getting screwed, as long as it's not me" rationale is applied to poor people, but kudos to UT for being fair and applying it to the upper-middle class, too.
ƒuck those 10-35% of Americans whining about a rampant, predatory business culture
Financial planners are under-regulated? Here is a "problem" that ONLY affects the upper middle class.
The definition has been expanded to include any professional making a recommendation or solicitation — and not simply giving ongoing advice. Previously, only advisors who were charging a fee for service (either hourly or as a percentage of account holdings) on retirement plans were considered fiduciaries.
Fiduciary is a much higher level of accountability than the suitability standard previously required of financial salespersons, such as brokers, planners and insurance agents, who work with retirement plans and accounts.
Maybe having a retirement account at all is what separates upper middle class from the rest, but this isn't just about people who have so much cash they go hire a financial planner.
Also, people on social security are often targeted by people or companies who want to manage their checks for them.
Political Debating 201: Whenever possible, widen the problem to include everyone.
Political Debating 201: Whenever possible, widen the problem to include everyone.
Because 10-35% of Americans is totally acceptable. Any more than that? FAKE NEWS!
I hardly think it's fair to attempt to rule out "scope of issue" as a relevant topic, when it was the entire topic of the post I was responding to.
When deciding if a federal regulation, which of course applies to everyone, is good or bad, should you only be concerned with the people you know it affects right now, and not the people it affects you don't know about, or people who may be affected later?
The problem has been not Nigerians getting Grandma's check, it's advising people to make the wrong choices to increase commissions and fees. It's like the guy that arranges to put the excess from rounded off math into his account and makes millions.
Boeing sued the outfit that was handling their employees 401Ks for shit like that.
It's not everybody with a retirement account. It's not everybody who gets a social security check. It's not everybody in the future.
You're the one with the absolute "ONLY" in your claim. I was claiming "NOT ONLY"; I wasn't claiming "EVERYBODY".
But the people it IS? ƒuck those people
Maybe, you don't know. Neither do I, but I know it's a significant amount of people. I've talked to several people lately, probably because it's tax time, who said they just don't understand the information sent to them by the advisor handling their retirement account. The advisors know that, so it provides plenty of opportunity. After a couple high profile people get fucked over for big sums it makes the news it gets noticed.
You know, I've never wanted to discuss stuff less with people. Have fun storming the castle, you win I'm out.
Again, from Investopedia
Annuity vendors also will have disclose their commissions to clients, which could significantly reduce sales of these products in many cases. These vehicles have been the source of major controversy among industry experts and regulators for decades, as they usually pay very high commissions to the agents selling them, and come with an array of charges and fees that can significantly reduce the returns that clients earn with them
....
The main impact is anticipated to be connected with IRAs, since these vehicles are often handled at brokerages. In particular, rollovers from 401(k) plans to IRAs will certainly come under scrutiny. There have been many instances reported in the financial press (and likely tens of thousands more in reality) about advisors suggesting rollovers to IRAs, even though it may not have been in the client’s best interest – either in terms of moving the client’s money out of a low-cost company retirement plan that offered solid investment choices or in terms of the types of high-cost investments recommended in the new IRA.
You know, I've never wanted to discuss stuff less with people. Have fun storming the castle, you win I'm out.
Oh I see, it's got to be your parameters, your rules, your pre planned discussion, or you take your marbles and go home.:rolleyes:
The first thing in any debate is establishing what you're debating and both(or more) parties understanding and agreeing on it. we haven't established whether we're debating the value of the law, or if it's just a political bone, or the segment of the population it affects directly, or if it will actually curb abuses by evil people.
If my obtuse, disingenuous, and self-contradicting debate style has you furstrated, wait until you see my "Jewish mother laying a guilt trip on you" routine!
he'll be here all week, try the veal
now we should feel bad because politics are our fault
Financial planners are under-regulated? Here is a "problem" that ONLY affects the upper middle class. It's not exactly the 1%, but it's the 10%-35% who care about this, but good on protecting them and stuff, they are the new Democratic Party after all. Since they are the electorate, they are going to need to be focused on, in the next few decades. Well not "need". They don't "need" but sure enough they will get attention!
You got a financial planner Biggie? Corporate or independent?
Your take on this issue was horseshit, and you were an asshole about it.
Breathe, Flint :p
There is no air in the internet cloud. Even the cloud is only virtual.
we have professional standards for medical doctors who are obligated to seek the best for the patient and advise the patient accordingly.
we have professional standards for lawyers who have an obligation to their clients *first*.
these are a couple areas where if you're seeking professional advice, you are probably dealing with something serious, or potentially serious. your finances are serious or potentially serious. Why not have similar standards?
Let me turn the question around. Explain why it is better for the financial advisers to be permitted to put your interests behind their own? the term snake oil comes to mind. Caveat emptor? Let the market decide? Why have any regulations regarding truth in lending for example? That's just a big fucking hassle. an unnecessary expense.
as for widening the problem to everyone, lemme ask you. have you yourself been subject to terrorists violence? Probably not, I hope not. Yet, you have to go through aaaalll the bullshit, with the rest of us, for a chance to reduce risk. Why is this a good idea? Widen the problem to include everyone. That's crap. You don't have to seek the advice, you don't have to fly, you don't have to get sick or arrested.
But... when you do. you want the people taking care of you, advising you, to be looking out for you first, don'cha? I do.
edited to add:
1--fixed typo
2--wow, serious tailposting, I missed the intervening 20 posts, give or take. this was due to just opening the thread to the most recent unread post, then I posted. then I saw my post and aaaaalll the others I failed to notice on the next page when I readthenposted. oops, sorry.
no. fuck ut and fuck his bullshit opinion.
insufferable, preachy, know-it-all cunt
"my tunnel vision gives me superpowers!"
You know, I've never wanted to discuss stuff less with people. Have fun storming the castle, you win I'm out.
Good idea, you had a losing hand...
Financial planners are under-regulated? Here is a "problem" that ONLY affects the upper middle class. It's not exactly the 1%, but it's the 10%-35% who care about this, but good on protecting them and stuff, they are the new Democratic Party after all. Since they are the electorate, they are going to need to be focused on, in the next few decades. Well not "need". They don't "need" but sure enough they will get attention!
You got a financial planner Biggie? Corporate or independent?
and you played it badly.
Still I am interesting in hearing your defense of the suspension of the rule. I'm interested in hearing a rationale for why it's a better idea for the public to have the lower "suitability standard" in place of the higher "fiduciary standard".
If you come back and play, I'll share my marbles with you.
ok, that was dirtier than I thought at first. srsly, though, if you got an argument to make, I'm open to hearing it.
The investopedia article does mention a drawback where smaller firms may have to shut down or sell themselves to other firms, due to compliance costs.
Of course, some of those will be doing so due to not being able to scam their customers anymore, so I'll shed no tears for them. But there may well be honest firms that have some problem with the required paperwork.
Just being devil's advocate here; I'm fully in favor of implementing the rule. But that's what the Republicans will be referring to when they say the rule will diminish customer choice.
When deciding if a federal regulation, which of course applies to everyone, is good or bad, should you only be concerned with the people you know it affects right now, and not the people it affects you don't know about, or people who may be affected later?
I haven't been following this but when the Republicans [strike]monetize[/strike] privatize Social Security would everyone be effected? The new privatizations, as in education, have been less about saving money for taxpayers and more about channeling tax dollars up the income ladder, trickle up economics if you will.
...buyer beware.
In the first, some one else protects you.
In the second, 'you' protect you.
Best advice: if you got money to gamble away, throw the dice yourself.
You protect you in both cases. With regulation, it's easier to do so, and you have a mechanism of redress if they cheat you anyways.
"You protect you in both cases."
Difference is: in the first, when some one else is doin' the defending, that some one is usually the one settin' up the paremeters. In the second, you decide. Now, mebbe the other guy has your best interests in mind, mebbe he doesn't. Always, though, you'll have your best interests in mind.
I simply think you're a better defender of you than the other guy can ever be.
Or, you're supposed to be.
#
"With regulation, it's easier to do so,"
Easier is not always preferable.
#
"and you have a mechanism of redress if they cheat you anyways."
Even in an unregulated world you have the option for redress...just have to be willing and able to get dirty, is all.
And really, that's what it's about, isn't it?
Some folks can get dirty, but too many can't or won't (so nobody gets to).
Reminds me of a private back-n-forth I had with Lamp way back, he favoring regulations (of a sort), me advocating for a d.i.y. approach, with my own experiences to back that approach up.
He didn't talk to me much after that.
No, you still decide in both cases.
I haven't been following this but when the Republicans [strike]monetize[/strike] privatize Social Security would everyone be effected? The new privatizations, as in education, have been less about saving money for taxpayers and more about channeling tax dollars up the income ladder, trickle up economics if you will.
I agree, it's Reagan's trickle UP plan, redux.
He didn't talk to me much after that.
So it was you, I thought it was me. :lol2:
Nice plan, henry, you just roll up your shirtsleeves and give the guy running your 401k a fat lip? :litebulb: Turns out we don't need any laws, about anything at all! :rollanim:
"No, you still decide in both cases."
No, only in one.
"401k"
I don't have one of those.
"Turns out we don't need any laws, about anything at all!"
Hyperbole.
"I thought it was me."
I think it was just his delicate sensibilities.
"No, you still decide in both cases."
No, only in one.
No, you can still apply your own parameters. In fact, you'll have more information available in order to do so.
I'm real sorry that there is more interest in "sports" than there is in "women's sports" although for now there is still less interest in seeing the top human potential as limited by gender. Perhaps someday there will be. I don't think it is a necessary factor in creating an less sexist culture.
Now we have a weird wild lightning rod for everyone
At high school and college level, the best women athletes are being beaten by transgendered XYs who identify as women.
Ideally there would be a separate sports category for tg'd people but one doubts that will happen
And it breaks civil rights laws in many states for high schools to not treat tg'd XYs as women -- as they should, arguably except for this one wild loophole
The nuance comes in the form of the argument that hormone therapy reduces muscle mass over time, so someone who has been TG a long time no longer has an advantage. The counter argument comes from the
two tg'd men coming in first and second at the Connecticut state track finals last year and breaking the meet record along the way.
It will cause XX girls to stop participating in girl's sports. As one shitposter put it, "Girls, you had your shot but once again boys are superior and you'll just have to live with it."
S'a tough one.
:crazy:
"S'a tough one."
No, it's not.
Regarding the recent news of the progress in fighting COVID-19 with Remdesivir:
Watching him hotfoot around while he pisses himself with gasoline does definitely give me a very satisfying sense of schadenfreude.
You're looking for a fight and I'm so not interested in that.
You are right again, as you often are. But I think it's important to point out that my fight is not with you, sir. I like you, I consider you a friend, I value you and your opinions. My fight is with the very senior Whitehouse official and his unindicted co-conspirators/enablers/cult members. I feel outnumbered, I haven't found a way to penetrate the obdurate deliberate ignorance separating "them" from reality. I find his behavior on display during these recent several "press conferences" appalling, disgusting. He's a very nasty person, if I may borrow a phrase.
You love it because it fulfills you.
You must have an enemy, it is a necessary part of evolved human nature. It is in our chimp brains.
Now you have an enemy, the dopamines rush in each time you think of him -- and you can feel that your thoughts are wildly important, and simply because they are in opposition, your brain rewards all this.
No matter whether it's actually sensible to be against a medication because the POTUS mentions it -- or, really, sensible to have spent any time considering it at all. The fight is the important thing.
It's a brain reaction; it's addict behavior. And so you assist him in stealing the oxygen from the room for any other topic. As they say, he's living rent-free in your head since 2016. And that is how he wins.
We must have an enemy, eh? Or are you not human?
Does the virus "win" by getting into my body and reproducing? That's what the very senior Whitehouse official's win is like. He's a parasite. One that is dangerous and well worth paying attention to, but he lives entirely off the host. As part of the informed citizenry that is the foundation of our republic, I can not help but pay attention to him. But that attention is not "winning", unless that's important for you to maintain so we can further this conversation. If so, yeah, winning.
This oxygen here, it's mine, I'm not stealing it. I'm using it to fuel the fires that light up his corruption, his incompetence. I don't oppose a point just because it comes from a highly placed source in the Whitehouse. I do compare it to other pertinent factors, including the "emotional appeal" of the presentation, the facts from other sources I trust, previous statements by the same official, etc. The net result will guide my reaction. Maybe that's just another day in my bubble. Maybe it's me trying to be the best citizen, adult, friend, person I can be. Those things probably overlap. Maybe I lose stock with you by my cheap shots, like the remark about the absence of the hydrochloroquine mentions--that's fair. They're cheap because they're easy. And man, is he an easy target.
But I'm all the way done with letting him slide on shit. You can go back and check the title of the thread for confirmation. Loyal to my country, opposed to the current officeholder.
I try very hard to love my enemies. It's revolutionary advice that wisdom has seen fit to pass down for centuries and has helped to preserve the human race.
This oxygen here, it's mine, I'm not stealing it. I'm using it to fuel the fires that light up his corruption, his incompetence.
The other day's news cycle, there were three national political stories. Dear Leader's press conference, Bernie's endorsement, stunning Wisconsin victory. The only story that got traction was the press conference. The other two were about Democratic ascendancy and unification. Those stories got less attention.
But I'm all the way done with letting him slide on shit.
And this is how he wins.
Now we have a weird wild lightning rod for everyone
At high school and college level, the best women athletes are being beaten by transgendered XYs who identify as women.
Ideally there would be a separate sports category for tg'd people but one doubts that will happen
And it breaks civil rights laws in many states for high schools to not treat tg'd XYs as women -- as they should, arguably except for this one wild loophole
The nuance comes in the form of the argument that hormone therapy reduces muscle mass over time, so someone who has been TG a long time no longer has an advantage. The counter argument comes from the two tg'd men coming in first and second at the Connecticut state track finals last year and breaking the meet record along the way.
It will cause XX girls to stop participating in girl's sports. As one shitposter put it, "Girls, you had your shot but once again boys are superior and you'll just have to live with it."
S'a tough one.
You know, right now sportsball doesn't seem quite as important.
I try very hard to love my enemies.
I don't. My enemies are assholes. That's why they're enemies.
The "very senior White House person" is a danger to the *statists,* who find the best harbor in just one of the Major Parties -- and none at all in one of the Minors.
This is *no* sort of danger to the United States of America. It's only being so trumpeted by people so short on thought as to confuse the Socialist Democrats and their giddy Party with America as a whole.
That won't wash. The two are too readily distinguished.
This is *no* sort of danger to the United States of America.
This is what they call the bravery of being out of range.
What is out of range now that the Second Amendment says we can all own 155 mm howitzers and other weapons of 'defense'.
This is what they call the bravery of being out of range.
By way of a fillip to your metaphorical nose there, I spent nine years plus in my country's uniform. Two awards Navy Expeditionary Medal. Quite, I think, in range.
What is out of range now that the Second Amendment says we can all own 155 mm howitzers and other weapons of 'defense'.
Tw is particularly shortchanged on US firearms history, in especial that from the beginning of the nation you could privately purchase field guns -- with intent -- for any private use you saw fit, and none to gainsay you; indeed, nothing but the weight of your purse. Shooting off that much powder per bang ran into money. Consequently, most such guns were like 4-pounders. They were cheaper to feed.
Full-auto smokeless powder arms? -- up through the Roaring Twenties. How much .45 ammo did you want for your Thompson gun? That ran into bucks too.
Tw's use of "now" seems more ill-advised than usual. Further, there is that whole
best defense aphorism. One who is attuned to civil rights teaches that you have, gain, and keep those rights you can enforce. Lethal force, even. You lose the rights you can't, or aren't allowed to, and that spells trouble. Tyranny (even inappropriateness) being worse than application of lethal force to tyrants -- or their staffers.
I spent nine years plus in my country's uniform.
And in all that time never once learned what a strategic objective or phase four planning is. Its called an enlistedman.
You are in even less of a position to sneer now, you who hadn't and haven't the mental health to function in military circumstance. You never bet your life on your society, your civilization. I understand you to be an object of contempt, and as far as that goes, you quite agree: when you dislike all things, you dislike yourself not least, and perhaps foremost, among them. You end up swamped in an evil. Dismissed.
And also on Ignore, as of this evening.
Self care is very important.
Good on ya.
But is it censorship?
iirc, the very first night I came on the Cellar, I was chewing his ass -- coming up on sixteen years ago. Okay, fifteen and a half, like. The guy has an allergy to our overthrowing oppressive tyrannies... I'll not sin so. If not us, just who again?
It is a point of pride, not putting anyone on Ignore. Well, I'm surrendering that corner of my pride. The degree of his non-improvement, his solipsistic nongrowth and nonmaturing, is astounding. Not much humor, either -- the mark of a certain out in the extremes sort of mentality. But 'most everyone here does know that about him, and a good many choose either a personal policy means or a mechanical one to not interact -- and good for them. More serene. Less of the bitterness of his acquaintance.
You are in even less of a position to sneer now, you who hadn't and haven't the mental health to function in military circumstance. You never bet your life on your society, your civilization. I understand you to be an object of contempt, and as far as that goes, you quite agree: when you dislike all things, you dislike yourself not least, and perhaps foremost, among them. You end up swamped in an evil. Dismissed.
I did 10 years in the infantry, and I am sneering.
I did 10 years in the infantry, and I am sneering.
Somehow he is an expert on strategic objectives.
He has constantly insulted me (rather than address facts) since his lies, about a book back around 2003, were exposed. Turns out, everything that UG believed was contradicted by that book. The book defined a George Jr strategy as defective. UG said he was endorsing that Cheney strategy.
The book discussed strategic objectives. It applied directly to what would become the "Mission Accomplished" war and the resulting failures. (His second book was even more complicated.)
UG eventually admitted he never got past the first chapter in that first book. He only saw what he wanted to see - as a Corporal would. That Corporal did not even know the difference between tactical objectives and strategic objectives. But he is somehow a military genius.
Somehow he is an expert on strategic objectives.
That is why I am sneering.
UG eventually admitted he never got past the first chapter in that first book. He only saw what he wanted to see - as a Corporal would. That Corporal did not even know the difference between tactical objectives and strategic objectives. But he is somehow a military genius.
I was a sergeant, and I never dealt with strategic objectives. Our objectives at my level were more like "sneak around behind that hill" or "cut that road" or "get more MREs up here", etc.
I did 10 years in the infantry, and I am sneering.
And good for you; what MOS's did you hold? I was addressing tw there.
I made first class petty officer -- Cryptologic Technician (Interpretive) First Class. Good duty if you can get the clearance. In the rear, with the gear, to be sure. I'd be the last to call the job a fun one to watch -- it's guys under headphones staring at equipment.
But the Toxic One -- no prayer of anything like it. Nor of having done anything that worthy.
snip--
But the Toxic One -- no prayer of anything like it. Nor of having done anything that worthy.
presumably you're talking about the very senior Whitehouse official, the anti hero of this thread.
Might want to recheck that presumption -- you may do it ironically if you want.
There's just nothing worthwhile on the Democratic side of the aisle: hacks, drones, anti-economists publicly desirous of debasing the currency, and at least one active anti-Semite yet unrecalled. Given that, the people who like a free Republic (you might join these) flee to the Annoying Orange (he does annoy, true) for refuge and for strength to be evil's ruination. Making policy that is essentially libertarian in inspiration is no sort of villainy, but the discommoding of the villainous and crawly Statist, the great Enemy of Liberty and other wonderful things which are essential like oxygen. Can't make you see it; you can't stop me seeing it. I see farther than you do. You could practice.
First class technician in cryptologic... hmm...
cryp•to /ˈkriptō/
noun
a person having a secret allegiance to a political creed, especially communism.
The word 'crypto' comes from the Greek word kruptós, meaning 'hidden' or 'secret'.
a person who adheres or belongs secretly to a party, sect, or other group
crypto adjective
not openly avowed or declared
log•ic /ˈläjik/
noun
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles.
Yup, it figures. :yesnod:
And good for you; what MOS's did you hold? I was addressing tw there.
I made first class petty officer -- Cryptologic Technician (Interpretive) First Class. Good duty if you can get the clearance. In the rear, with the gear, to be sure. I'd be the last to call the job a fun one to watch -- it's guys under headphones staring at equipment.
But the Toxic One -- no prayer of anything like it. Nor of having done anything that worthy.
I was an 11B. Army, infantry, bog-standard. E5 when I was medically discharged.
First class technician in cryptologic... hmm...
Those crypto boxes had beads that were set for different encryption settings. Moving those beads without breaking a support wire was the job of crypto technicians. They had no idea how those boxes worked or what they did. They were only told what setting to use. These techs would not know what PCM, FSK, nor even NRZ was. That was data incoming and outgoing of those boxes. Techs only knew what cable must connect to what port.
Even that was hard to screw up. Each connector was keyed so that crypto techs would not make a mistake. So corporals did those jobs.
The Opposition to Trump Loyal to their country grows daily.
Here is a sober explanation of why Trump's actions have been and continue to hurt Trump's political fortunes.
The country has witnessed and experienced Trump's greatness and changed its mind.
Americans may have grown accustomed to the lies and exaggerations, but more of them have become hostile to Trump's illiberal, cynical, and divisive vision for the country.
They looked in the mirror and did not like what they saw; they felt ashamed and insecure at home and abroad.
... They looked in the mirror and did not like what they saw; they felt ashamed and insecure at home and abroad.
That's like what they said about Hillary supporters after she disgraced them by losing to the likes of Trump.
Please read this to help innoculate yourself from TRUMP-20.
It's an interview with the author, Texas A&M communications professor Jennifer Mercieca, of "
Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump."
Here are six of terms I learned:
ad populum "appeal to the crowd"
"American uniqueness" — as in, America is just a different place, with a different history and values — not necessarily better or worse, just different. --snip-- Trump uses it differently. He claims to be the apotheosis of American exceptionalism mean[nig] "America winning"
(my favorite)
paralipsis, which you translate colloquially as "I'm not saying/I'm just saying." It's a signature way for Trump to communicate, typified by retweeting outrageous tweets — particularly from white nationalists and conspiracy theorists — and then disavowing responsibility. But he does it so continuously ("seriously, not literally")
ad hominem attack ... with ad hominem Trump is avoiding the central issue of debate and redirecting our attention
Trump is also known for ad baculum tactics, which means "appeals to the stick," threats of force or violence.
reification — in this case, meaning treating people like objects. Perhaps the best example of this is his treatment of women, whom he treats very differently depending on whether or not they are useful to him.
My hope is that readers of my book will learn how and why Trump's dangerous demagoguery works so that they can defend themselves from it. But that will only do so much. The bigger picture is we need to remake our political and economic culture to prevent demagogues like Trump from ever gaining power in the first place. We need to figure out how to create trust. We need to figure out how to end polarization. We need to figure out how to end frustration. We need an economic and political system that works for the people and not for the elite. The political project of our time is to defend democracy.
Amen sister.
I heard that in the interest of mankind, Trump will be donating his ego to medical science.
.... and I quote:
"A glaring double standard that exists here is nothing short of incredible."
From Hannity's lips to Trump's ears.
[YOUTUBE]b-cZG81-MPQ[/YOUTUBE]
I heard that in the interest of mankind, Trump will be donating his ego to medical science.
Speaking
confidently on behalf of all mankind, thanks, but no thanks, we have all had enough already.
... thanks, but no thanks, ...
They can't get it through any laboratory doors, anyway.
Maybe it could be used to fuel a nuclear power plant? No. Bad idea. We don't need any more meltdowns.
Maybe we could take it to that beach in Oregon where the whale was beached!
Or, maybe we could bring Mohammed to the mountain.
EW.
Nawww, they're going to make a vaccine from it so the weak will be immune to it in the future.
George Will... yeah, that George Will.
June 02, 2020
George Will is a famous and highly respected conservative political commentator, a Pulitzer Prize winner, a former editor of William F. Buckley's National Review in the 1970s, and a former contributor and analyst for ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News. Here are excerpts from his op-ed piece today in the Washington Post.
This unraveling presidency began with the Crybaby-in-Chief banging his spoon on his highchair tray to protest a photograph — a photograph — showing that his inauguration crowd the day before had been smaller than the one four years previous. Since then, this weak person’s idea of a strong person, this chest-pounding advertisement of his own gnawing insecurities, this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron
Presidents, exploiting modern communications technologies and abetted today by journalists preening as the “resistance” — like members of the French Resistance 1940-1944, minus the bravery — can set the tone of American society, which is regrettably soft wax on which presidents leave their marks. The president’s provocations — his coarsening of public discourse that lowers the threshold for acting out by people as mentally crippled as he — do not excuse the violent few. They must be punished. He must be removed...
The nation’s downward spiral into acrimony and sporadic anarchy has had many causes much larger than the small man who is the great exacerbator of them. Most of the causes predate his presidency, and most will survive its January terminus. The measures necessary for restoration of national equilibrium are many and will be protracted far beyond his removal. One such measure must be the removal of those in Congress who, unlike the sycophantic mediocrities who cosset him in the White House, will not disappear “magically,” as Eric Trump said the coronavirus would. Voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger for petting...
Those who think our unhinged president’s recent mania about a murder two decades ago that never happened represents his moral nadir have missed the lesson of his life: There is no such thing as rock bottom. So, assume that the worst is yet to come...
George Will... yeah, that George Will.
:lol2:
From Wikipedia:
... Rape victimization comments
Will's June 6, 2014, newspaper column about "the supposed campus epidemic of rape" was widely criticized, with Democratic U.S. senators and feminists highly critical of the article. Will wrote, "...when [colleges and universities] make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate." Will's column sparked an outcry on Twitter, with professed rape victims recounting their stories of sexual assault and violence. "It takes a particular kind of ignorance to argue that people who come forward to report being raped in college are afforded benefits of any kind," wrote Jessica Valenti in The Guardian." In an open letter to Will, Senators Richard Blumenthal, Dianne Feinstein, Tammy Baldwin and Bob Casey wrote, "Your column suggests that we — including some of us who have worked on this issue for many years – all have missed a subculture on college campuses where survivors of sexual assault are inducted into a privileged class. The culture you described is so antiquated, so counter-intuitive and so contrary to anything we heard that we hope you will make an effort to hear the stories survivors bravely shared with us about the struggles they face in addressing what has happened to them — often with little meaningful assistance from authorities expected to help them." The St. Louis Post-Dispatch dropped Will's column from its pages as a result of the column. "The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it," editor Tony Messenger wrote. Will responded to the senators in his blog, saying his article was based on "simple arithmetic involving publicly available reports," and that sexual assault "should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and not be adjudicated by improvised campus processes."
2014 Ebola spread claim
In 2014, Will claimed that Ebola could be spread via sneezing, contrary to widely accepted evidence which says that Ebola can only be spread by direct contact with infected bodily fluids. The comments occurred in a context of Republican criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. PolitiFact rated Will's claim as "False."
Bill O'Reilly
In 2015, following the release of Bill O'Reilly's book Killing Reagan, Will opined that the book contained poorly sourced, inaccurate information that disparaged President Ronald Reagan. Describing the book as "...a tissue of unsubstantiated assertions," and O'Reilly as "...an opportunistic interloper," Will concluded, "O’Reilly’s vast carelessness pollutes history and debases the historian’s craft." The feud escalated when Will appeared on O'Reilly's show, The O'Reilly Factor, during which O'Reilly accused Will of libel. The interview ended with O'Reilly calling Will "...a hack and a liar."...
More fun reading about crazy Will, 79, at the link.
I heard that in the interest of mankind, Trump will be donating his ego to medical science.
He doesn't have a superego, but plenty of id to make up for it.
Can we get this taken care of today?
They defunded their nameplates, badges, and vehicle markings.
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/18/892617402/oregon-to-sue-federal-agencies-over-protest-enforcement
Protests in Portland, Ore., continued through early Sunday morning, following the Oregon Department of Justice's announcement it would be suing several federal agencies for civil rights abuses in the state. Demonstrations have taken place in the city for weeks following the police killing of George Floyd in May. ... the suit accuses the agencies of engaging "in unlawful law enforcement in violation of the civil rights of Oregon citizens by seizing and detaining them without probable cause." ...
In some countries I've worked, that's how they get their military conscripts.
Hey, wait a minute, instead of catch and release, we could send them to Afghanistan to protest the Taliban! It always comes down to matching the right people to the right jobs.
In some countries I've worked, that's how they get their military conscripts.
We expect better in a country of laws.
There are in-laws and there are outlaws.
Hey, wait a minute, instead of catch and release, we could send them to Afghanistan to protest the Taliban!
Trump is already trying to surrender to the Taliban - just like Nixon did in Vietnam. No reason to protest against forces that have already won that war. Because George Jr (Cheney) failed to do any phase four planning.
For those who do not know, when a military victor does not do phase four planning within 6 months, that military victor ends up getting defeated. As demonstrated in Afghanistan. And again in Iraq.
In both cases, disciplines of Fox News never learned (were never told) that.
"Profits Made
Profits Kept"
Ouch. Well played.
(Except in Portland and Chicago)
Trump says it's ok for "Microsoft or another very secure, 'very American' company" to buy TikTok, but he wants a kickback. :rolleyes:
... but he wants a kickback.
As explained in the book "The Art of the Deal".
When do all contractors, that did not get paid for Trump Taj Mahal, get their kickback?
And why do Fascists say that was a good deal?