Many of us look at the situation of women in Saudi Arabia and think how fortunate we are to live in the US where we have more freedom, where women have been an integral part of building our country, where we have fought so hard for our rights.
So I will stand with the women of Saudi Arabia who are struggling to have their voices heard, just as so many women in my country have struggled in the past. I will hope that they find their way to freedom.
156 comments:
WaPo Op-Ed says the young voters currently moving to supporting third party candidates are under the impression that Hillary has it in the bag, and it's safe for them to cast a protest vote. And what she's gotta do is let them know that Trump can win if enough of the NeverTrump vote goes third-party.
And the question, still real and still pending for Marcus is:
‘What are the specifics on the charges against Hillary? What, specifically, did she supposedly do’?
Didn't want that to get lost in the transition to the new thread.
There is some speculation out there that a lot of that Hate Hillary crap has more to do with her being a her rather than her being a him.
So while we, indeed, have come a long way in women's rights, we may possibly have some way to go yet.
As I was running through some videos for this post I happened across one that made me think of Marcus.
Marcus, you may be interested in what she has to say:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on a culture clash
I see there was a mall shooting in Washington state. Five have been killed and they are looking for the shooter.
I don't doubt that there is some resistance to Hillary on account of her gender, but I suspect it's less than there was to Obama on account of his race. (This is not to say that Radio-Right-Wing doesn't do all it can to stir that up; they most certainly do.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Are you otherwise familiar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali? (She'll find a fan in Marcus fer shur.)
I took the time to look at your YouTube anyway. She's not a blonde Swede, but Marcus may fall in love anyway.
I ran across a piece of advice for watching the debates Monday. Fella suggested turning off the sound. Trump's gonna lie like big dog anyway; that's what he does.
Hillary's gonna stomp him on substance; ain't no doubt ’bout that either.
So, for Trump's people, it comes down to perceptions. Trump ain't any good at faking a strike, nor any good at concealing his glee when he makes a strike. How he's doin’ with his people will be readable in his face and body language--what's actually said doesn't really matter there.
If ya wanna know whether Trump's keeping his 40% loyal, watch him without the sound--watching his reactions to both his own strikes and Hillary's counter-strikes will tell ya more than listening to his babble and trying to make sense of it.
(Personally, I'll keep the sound on.)
"I see there was a mall shooting in Washington state."
And, in accord with your ‘Women got it hard’ theme, we discover that the shooter first opened fire in the makeup department of the mall Macy's store.
Are you otherwise familiar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali? (She'll find a fan in Marcus fer shur.)
I have her book "Infidel" which recounts her life, but I haven't read it yet. *sigh* Too many books, too little time. I understand she is a controversial type of person. I do remember "The Kid' not caring for her. I think he believed she generalized too much, perhaps.
Having just grabbed the book and refreshed my memory, I see she has been a target for extremist types due to her activities. *shrug* I prefer to evaluate someone myself, though.
In the video she does seem to believe, as does Marcus, that there is trouble brewing in Europe, though, with the influx of so many people of a different culture and set of values.
I ran across a piece of advice for watching the debates Monday. Fella suggested turning off the sound.
Oh no, I'm with you, I am going to keep the sound on. Yes, body language does reveal a lot, but there are also those moments when a good one-liner can really make a debate zing. :) They were just talking about that on the news tonight, and mentioning some that stand out.
A classic:
Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy
Funny, watching that clip reminded me that debates could actually be conducted civilly.
And, in accord with your ‘Women got it hard’ theme, we discover that the shooter first opened fire in the makeup department of the mall Macy's store.
Yeah, I noticed that too. It made me wonder if he had a grudge against women.
Almost forgot, this little snippet of news was listed under the column "News of the weird" in my local paper today:
One of the Islamic State's first reforms in captured territory has been to require adult women to dress devoutly - including the face-covering burqa robe, which, in Western democracies famously presents security dilemmas because it hinders identification. Now, after two years of Islamic State occupation in Mosul, Iraq the security problem has come full circle on ISIS itself. Dispatches from the town reported in September that ISIS has likely banned the burqa because it hinders identification of anti-ISIS insurgents who (female and male) wear burqas to sneak up on Islamic State officers.
Gotta love it! lol!
Donald Trump has said he's gonna bring Gennifer Flowers to Monday's debate; give her a ticket to a front row seat. She says she's gonna come too. WaPo
I wonder that he's not called on Monica Lewinski or Paula Jones. Gennifer Flowers is definitely a "B" team player.
Here's a shocker. The New York Times has finally come out and endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Actually, the surprise here is that they manage to make an actual case in favor of Clinton. The NYT isn't exactly known for having an historically favorable opinion of her.
Mike Pence on FoxNewsSunday just said Gennifer Flowers will not, in fact, attend the debate. No word about whether or not she backed out or Trump backed down.
Mike Pence on FoxNewsSunday just said Gennifer Flowers will not, in fact, attend the debate. No word about whether or not she backed out or Trump backed down.
The problem with opening that can of worms is that it allows your opponent to go there too. Or at least her staff. I can't imagine that Trump, who has been divorced multiple times, does not have any dirty laundry laying around.
It seems that the bomber in NY/NJ kept a journal, from which law enforcement has gleaned some interesting gossip about others in the extremist camp. One thing stands out as being of interest. That is that the appeal for some of those radicalized, at least of the Americans anyway, is not religious but, well, guilt. They are, at least indirectly, responsible for the US foreign policy and must something to rectify the injustice, basically. A concept that I noticed has been espoused elsewhere in my conversations with people.
do does go in that one sentence right before "something"
Actually, the surprise here is that they manage to make an actual case in favor of Clinton.
Looking at her achievements it is not so surprising if they are a balanced fair minded publication. Her resume made it easy to make that case. It is just a shame that many people will not take the time to read it.
"…it is not so surprising if they are a balanced fair minded publication…"
They're not known for being balanced or fair-minded where Hillary Clinton is concerned. They've been down on her for a long time now. (Perhaps the spectre of Trump has clarified their mind and vision.)
Aww, you've missed me I see. Had to Christen a friend's kid yesterday - the Godfather Marcus - so I took some time off from this bickering.
Lee: "What, specifically, did she supposedly do’?"
It's more of a pattern than an isolated thing. Watch Clintons Cash from start to finish and you too, like about 80% of Americans, might see her as someone sitting on too many chairs.
Lynnette: "Marcus, you may be interested in what she has to say"
Will watch it and comment later.
Lynnette: "In the video she does seem to believe, as does Marcus, that there is trouble brewing in Europe, though, with the influx of so many people of a different culture and set of values."
It's brewing so bad even the elites are scared now. Donald Tusk has come out strong promising there will never be a repeat of the "refugee crisis" in 2016 and has advocated a massive effort at building/financing refugee camps in conflict zones or eighboring countries. A conversion under the gallows as this very sane and sensible path has been the preferred option among us "deplorables" all along. It remains to be seen though if we can trust this flip-flop or if it's just talk. Then there's the thorny issue of repatriations (for instance our Social Democratic government promises 40K returned, but I do not believe them) so it might be prudent to keep voting "far right" for the foreseeable future.
Lynnette: "The problem with opening that can of worms is that it allows your opponent to go there too. Or at least her staff. I can't imagine that Trump, who has been divorced multiple times, does not have any dirty laundry laying around."
Trump inviting that woman, although that seems like it's not actually gonna happen, was a response to Hillarys campaign inviting Trump antagonist Mark Cuban first. Hillary opened the can of worms and Trump fired back in a very Trumpian way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/24/bill-clinton-accuser-gennifer-flowers-accepts-donald-trumps-invitation-to-attend-debate/?tid=pm_pop_b
You can't stump the Trump!
"The problem with opening that can of worms is that it allows your
opponent to go there too."
Yeah, well, it was Hillary who opened that can of worms. She invited Mark Cuban to sit in the front row, Cuban is a real self-made billionaire and that kinda gets under Trump's skin.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"It's more of a pattern than an isolated thing."
The pattern is that the Hating Hillary crowd howls about the imaginary pattern. They never actually have ‘an isolated thing’, nothing, except their fever swamp imaginings; which is why you don't have anything either. I'm amazed that it's worked this well for them, but it has, obviously. Sucked you in along with a lot of others.
"Watch Clintons Cash from start to finish…"
Might as well just start debating global importance of the facts revealed by the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.
(Remember what I told ya ‘bout Brietbart--the financing behind "Clinton Cash")
Lynnette: "There is some speculation out there that a lot of that Hate Hillary crap has more to do with her being a her rather than her being a him."
Must be a peculiar American thing then because I can think of many both adored and strong female political leaders throughout the world, some in democratic nations like Merkel in Germany, Thatcher in England. Some in outright repressice states suck as Aun San Suu Kyi in Burma (granted, she's not been give the right to rule just yet but the PEOPLE adore her).
Then of course Marine Le Pen is the beacon of hope for many "deplorable" Europeans who are surely misonogysts based on their political leanings but nevertheless hold a woman up as the maybe greatest hope for a future free and western Europe.
"I can't imagine that Trump…does not have any dirty laundry laying
around."
I think his people are more worried that it'll make him look bad to bring it up at all. After all, it's not like Hillary was having an affair with Gennifer Flowers--relevance is a problem, spite and nastiness is, however, easy to make out. They don't need that while they're trying to get that middle 4% to put with his 40% Republican stalwart voters.
Thing is, Mike Pence and campaign manager KellyAnne Conway have both said that Gennifer isn't gonna get an invite, but Trump himself hasn't confirmed that yet, and he's been known to escape his minders before.
Lee: "Might as well just start debating global importance of the facts revealed by the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’."
That's been properly debunked, those "protocols". Clintons Cash has not. How is it that HALF of the open meetings she had as SoS were with folks who had donated to her private foundation? Doesn't that at least look like it's possible to buy a meeting with her? And them were the open meetings. Now what of the possible and probable secret ones?
Lee: "I took the time to look at your YouTube anyway. She's not a blonde Swede, but Marcus may fall in love anyway."
That's one of them snarky comments that makes me quite dislike you Lee.
"How is it that HALF of the open meetings she had as SoS were with
folks who had donated to her private foundation?"
That happens to be not true, nowhere even close to true, is how that happens to be. Fever swamp imaginings.
"That's one of them snarky comments that makes me quite dislike you Lee."
Not sure I follow. I've known for years she wasn't a blonde Swede. It's not like I just discovered that by looking at Lynnette's video. (She makes regular appearances on Radio-Right-Wing; she's especially popular on the Sean Hannity Show. She can even make sorta sense for like 10-15 minutes sometimes before she invariably descends into raving Islamophobia, unless somebody challenges her during that 10-15 minutes, in which case she's usually off and raving almost immediately.)
Lynnette: "I can't imagine that Trump…does not have any dirty laundry laying
around."
Lee: "I think his people are more worried that it'll make him look bad to bring it up at all. After all, it's not like Hillary was having an affair with Gennifer Flowers--relevance is a problem, spite and nastiness is, however, easy to make out."
Teflon Don is immune to those sorts of attacks anyway. He's been attacked plenty and it washes right off him. People already KNOW who he is and if he screwed a cocktail waitress behind his wife's back back in the 80's no one's gonna be surprised to find out about it, the Don is gonna flat out deny it no matter the proof and it won't make any impact whatsoever come voting time. Trying to scandalize the Trumpinator - that dog won't hunt.
Lee: "Not sure I follow. I've known for years she wasn't a blonde Swede."
Your comment pretty much made it clear you thought I would be against her because she's dark skinned but now that she spoke out in favour of my political thinking I might like here even if she's not blonde. How else am I to interprit your racial comment?
Ask your girlfriend how it'll look for him to bring his opponent's husband's ex-mistress to the debate and plop her in a front row seat. You got no clue ‘bout how well that pointer hunts; she'll know.
It won't hurt him with the 40%, but that's not their worry--they're worried ‘bout the extra 4% they're starting to attract.
"How else am I to interprit your racial comment?"
As in you consider dark-skinned African immigrant types to be (generally) culturally inferior. You've stated that much outright a couple of times.
Lee: "That happens to be not true, nowhere even close to true, is how that happens to be. Fever swamp imaginings."
I took that from Swedens leading tabloid, a pretty pro-Hillary publication.
"Just korrupt är en bild som Donald Trump försökt cementera. Förra veckan framkom att över hälften av de privatpersoner som Hillary Clinton träffade under en period när hon var utrikesminister var människor som donerat pengar till Clinton Foundation."
Translates to (by Google):
"Just corrupt is an image that Donald Trump tried to cement . Last week it emerged that over half of the individuals who Hillary Clinton met during a period when she was Minister of Foreign Affairs were people who donated money to the Clinton Foundation ."
http://www.expressen.se/geo/anne-sofie-naslund/darfor-alskar-usa-att-hata-hillary-clinton/
But as usual YOU know better right?
"I took that from Swedens leading tabloid…"
Ah, tabloids, well that explains a lot.
Lynnette, watched that video now. Yes as you know I agree with just about everything she says. My adding to it would be she speaks of only a small part of the problem. But all in all an informative video.
Meanwhile in Stockholm the "firms" (for you US readers a firm is the hardcore street-fighting core of the hooligan faction of supporters to a football club) have banded together despite their animosity for each other and are allegedly doing attacks on Moroccan "street children" in our capital.
Those Moroccans aren't actually children but usually 20-25 YO arabs, living on the streets in Stockholm and Gothenburg (curiously not in Malmö though) and doing a lot of robberies, rapes and causing general mayhem. Extremely agressive I hear.
Since the police aren't up to the task but only at the best play catch-and-release with those cretins now the firms are stepping in. The backlash is starting.
The backlash is starting.
Like this?
How is it that HALF of the open meetings she had as SoS were with folks who had donated to her private foundation? Doesn't that at least look like it's possible to buy a meeting with her?
I can't say how many meetings Hillary Clinton had with donors, either to the Clinton Foundation or to her campaigns, but I doubt that she is the only political figure that has big money behind her.
It seems to be an across the board phenomenon. I well remember the hullabaloo surrounding Dubya's choices of cronies for positions in government. One can't really single out Hillary as the only one who may have given special consideration to donors.
If people are supporting Trump in some kind of anti-elite kind of protest vote they are really barking up the wrong tree. They should have looked at one of the other Republican candidates rather than a wealthy businessman. Even if his wealth turns out to be all smoke and mirrors he has spent a lifetime hobnobbing with just those elites they oppose.
Yeah, well, it was Hillary who opened that can of worms. She invited Mark Cuban to sit in the front row, Cuban is a real self-made billionaire and that kinda gets under Trump's skin.
Says something about the man that it is a rival businessman that would needle him.
But if he is really presidential material he should be able to move beyond that. Just as I suspect Hillary could move beyond a Gennifer Flowers. It is the press who would have a field day with that.
"Just as I suspect Hillary could move beyond a Gennifer Flowers."
One can never tell for certain, but I don't think Gennifer Flowers was likely to knock her off her game. As I mentioned before, Flowers was "B-team" at best among Bill's list of dalliances.
In his quest to be the anti-Obama in all things, like any good Republican minion should, Trump has signed on with the Netanyahu agenda for our relationship with Israel. This represents another in his series of many policy flips.
Several recent analyses have concluded that Donald Trump lies about once every five minutes whenever he's talking. Politico.com says it's down to once every 3¼ minutes now. (And yet the rap on Hillary is that she isn't honest and trustworthy, as compared to The Donald presumably.)
The real question for tonight: Can Donald Trump sit still for 90 minutes? The practice debates in the Republican primaries don't count. He got commercial and bathroom breaks; he's not gonna get those tonight. And, when he wasn't ‘on’ he had a show to watch--the other 16, then 15, then fewer and fewer, but always there was somebody; there was the other show to watch. He's not gonna get that tonight either--He's the show! 90 minutes straight on through--this has preyed on The Donald's mind; we know this because he's been accusing Hillary of not being able to go the full 90.
Trump is a fidgety fella. Can he go the 90 minutes and stay focused?
Conventional Wisdom is: Trump doesn't piss on the floor tonight; Trump wins. Politico.com
I'm beginning to convince myself it's not gonna be that easy for him. We'll see I guess.
I would have liked to watch it but it starts at 9PM ET and that's 3 Am over here. Can't be up at that hour during the work week. I will have to wait until tomorrow morning and see what is said in the news. Maybe some evening I'll get around to watching the whole thing myself.
"Maybe some evening I'll get around to watching the whole thing myself."
Somebody'll pull the highlights. Watching that's gotta be a more productive use of time than watching the whole thing after it's all been dissected and highlighted.
Probably I won't watch it all but as you mention just check out the highlights and read what opinion folks and analysts have to say 'bout it all.
Lee: "As in you consider dark-skinned African immigrant types to be (generally) culturally inferior. You've stated that much outright a couple of times."
I missed that one. Well Ayaan Hirsi Ali is from Somalia and yes indeed I deem Somali culture inferior to Swedish culture or western culture in general. Stuff like gender-mutilation, honour killings and those veils even on little girls don't sit well with me. And I see no real progress in the siences either. Can't envision myself going to Somalia and "integrate" because the differnces are way too great.
I don't, however, claim that this is an objective truth. It's my subjective opinion.
And I am quite sure many Somalis think THEIR culture is the one that is superior. They tend to see our women as, well at least sluts but actually like prostitutes. And they blame that on us men who they see as lacking any honour. Their (general) opinion I am sure is they are morally and culturally superior.
Therefor, being a cultural conservative myself, it's maybe not so strange after all that I am against a large influx of people with so vastly different ideas and mindsets.
A cultural Marxist, on the other hand, will claim all we need is some integration and place the blame on the majority culture when this time and again fails.
"And I am quite sure many Somalis think THEIR culture is the one
that is superior."
I strongly suspect they know better than that. Their culture consistently produces widespread poverty, illiteracy, starvation and stagnation. They write no great novels (nor even adequate histories); they produce no great science, nor even adequate science. Their culture is stagnated at its best, more often actually fallen backwards, even as Western culture has spanned the world and begun the trek to stars. They are remnants of a dying culture barely holding on in the face of a thriving culture, and they know it; and they resent it.
French President François_Hollande claims the migrant camp at the Channel Tunnel entrance in Calais is going to be dismantled by the first of the year. BBC (with a YouTube link even) It appears that the Brits are going to go in on the costs of securing the French side of the Tunnel. (Makes sense, even if it is a French responsibility; can't afford to rely on the French to actually do it just on account of it being their responsibility.)
Well, I've got my popcorn, actually double fudge chocolate chunk ice cream, and I'm all set.
Only minutes into it, maybe less, but Donald is off to a rather poor start.
15 minutes I meant to say--and he's not improving on his performance with the extra couple of minutes.
Trump's having a bad night. Halfway into it and it's not goin’ well for him.
On a brighter note for Trump. He has the thin spots in his hair swirl mostly filled in tonight.
I think, first off, Lester Holt did a pretty damn good job with a difficult subject (that being Trump). He'll catch some shit, but I thought he did a pretty good job.
Hillary stomped Trump in the debate, but Trump didn't piss on the floor.
I figure Trump held his 40%, but lost with the other 4% that he was courting.
I fell asleep during the last part of it. I might have to see if they have it on YouTube and watch what I missed.
She had him for lunch. That's one tough, talented lady. I don't know if it was because he looked so bad, or what, but she looked very Presidential.
From the various polls they took it looks like other people agree with me.
(I asked my mother who she thought won, and her response was a "oh, she did" as if there was no question.)
Btw, that split screen didn't do Trump much good. His demeanor was rather unpleasant.
"…and watch what I missed."
The trajectory did not change. He did not have a good night. To the very end it was not a good night for Trump, but he didn't piss on the floor.
The only one with some name recognition I've come across to say outright that Trump won is Newt Gingrish. Most other Trump supporters say it could have gone better. Many say he missed some opportunities they themselves identified. Several say the topic of the questions were tilted to favor Hillary.
So all in all with so many excuses and explanations I have to assume he lost. And Hillary by most accounts did well.
I'll check out some of the clips that I assume are on Youtube later on and see for myself.
"I'll check out some of the clips…"
You're not going to find a lot of knock-down clips. It wasn't that kind of win. She just kept hammering on him; damn few knock-downs. But she just kept hammering on him. And he couldn't land a punch for most of the show. (Got in a couple, but they were rare.) I think he interrupted her 27 times in the first 25 minutes, and never scored a clean hit out of any of them.
What I'm looking for are a few 10-15 minute clips to get a feel for how they respectively performed in general. How they came off to the audience. It's not just about the issues but just as much about personality and composure. At least I think so.
Blogger ate my very good comment on how Trump won the first 10 minutes bout the economy.
Well after that he took a turn for the worse mainly by interrupting the whole time and sounding a bit obnoxious.
Also Hillary finally came on with a non-hot-air point on how to fix the economy, which was by taxing the wealthy more.
(My own opinion on that is that the US tax code as far as I have been able to tell is like a swiss cheese and that a really bold move would be to just re-write it from scratch it and simplify it and do away with the many exceptions and loopholes. Not sure how doable that is but I have heard it mentioned and it made sense to me)
"…my very good comment on how Trump won the first 10 minutes
bout the economy."
I didn't think he won it. His analysis was flawed, wrong--he got it wrong; no better way to say it. He was just wrong. Everybody knows about the problem, no points for having a firm grasp on the obvious, but identifying the problem is no answer. He had the causes and the remedies just flat-ass wrong.
After saying in the spin room last night that Lester Holt did a good job, Team Trump is castigating him this morning. They need a scapegoat.
And Trump is making morning bitching ‘bout his microphone not working (it managed to pick up his sniffling, which he has denied already this morning, and his sighing, which nobody's mentioned to him yet).
No in the first 10 minutes Trump did address a couple of points:
#1 That if the US sells goods to mexico and the mexicans tax them with a VAT at 16% and the US does not tax mexican imports in return it WILL make US manufacturing less competitive. That's a fact. And that will also have an impact on where production is allocated and thus where jobs are created/lost.
That could be fixed easily by different policies.
#2 That China is manipulating its currency. It's a fact that China does this and does it based on Party analysis as to what benefits China.
How that would be adressed is less clear.
But Trump voived both these relevant issues in the first 10 minutes.
Hillary, well that was mostly hot air.
Profit sharing within companies - there's just no way whatsoever the government are gonna do something in that arena.
Very few companies with very high-end professionals will do profit sharing because they KNOW their staff is close to irreplacabe. In fact many have done so alredady in the form of bonuses. The vast bulk of employers will not though. And Clinton well knows that FORCING such schemes on businesses will be deemed outright communist and that will never happen
So, in the first 10 minutes Trump spoke of actual problems and presented us with actual (although vague) solutions. Hillary was just "presedential" and came up with lots of hot air.
Can you even name a real solution to a rreal issue she mentioned in the first 10 minutes? No she was just spweing stuff about "green economy" and "better middle class jobs" but without ANY real answers.
At least Trump had some answers.
But afther those 10 minutes where he won he went down hill.
A VAT tax is basically a sales tax. Works the same. Sales taxes are never levied on items not sold in taxing jurisdiction. Mexico's VAT is 16%. New York state's VAT varies depending on the item but it runs to 8.875% on non food items (I don't think Mexico charges the VAT on food). California's state sales tax runs to 7.5% and it can easy run up to 10% when city sales taxes are applied. If Trump told his people that what he was proposing was an increase on their sales taxes they'd understand better what he's up to with that, and they wouldn't like it, but he doesn't even understand how it works.
And, China has long since ceased holding down its currency exchange rate, and is now propping it up to try to stave off a run on their stock markets.
Trump has no clue what's going on in either of those circumstances. He's just flat-ass wrong.
Mexico finances its federal government with a regressive tax that falls most heavily on the poor and working class and lets the wealthy off the hook. Trump wants to tell us that our salvation is emulate that? Gimme a break.
"(I don't think Mexico charges the VAT on food)"
And, if they do, I don't think it matters much to us.
Lee: "If Trump told his people that what he was proposing was an increase on their sales taxes they'd understand better what he's up to with that, and they wouldn't like it, but he doesn't even understand how it works."
Now you're just shilling. Og course there are measures to dress that. One would as you say be a US VAT-tax. If that's not possible then a tax at the borders when goods are brought in to offset the upper hand imported goods have.
BTW - Sweden has a VAT of 25% and then rebates for food (8%) and books (6%) and whatnot. This makes a US-made car 25% more expensive than the selling price over here. And you do not have any tarrifs in responce (because of NAFTA) so we can ship all the Volvo:s we want to you with no taxation in the market place.
I know that you Lee love to give your country over to brown or black people, and that whites are an anomality that must be eradicated, preferrably Muslim, but how do you feel about swedish white devils cheating you out of car sales? Must hurt, no?
Well you might find solace in the fact that even Volvo is now Chineese-owned. So in fact you're not bending a knee to another white but to an asian. That must comfort you.
"This makes a US-made car 25% more expensive than the selling price over here."
It also makes the Volvo 25% more expensive over there. (Locally it's closer to 8% on both the Buick and the Volvo--there's no real justification for us taxing the Volvo at 25+8=33% and the Buick at only 8% except for open and blatant protectionism, which will start a trade war, which will hurt everybody.)
A "trade war"? OK it might hurt momentarilly. But it may be well worth it if you create more productiion in the US.
Ah, well, if Trump wants to start a trade war, we can discuss that, but openly one hopes. (His voters will be way down on that idea, once the ramifications sink in with them, but we can at least discuss it openly one hopes.)
My opinion is Hilllary needed a clear win, and to make Trump look unfit for the Precidency. She achived none of those. So in all likelyhood Trump actually WON regerdless of the issues.
It might seem strange,
But Trump cannot be stumped!
You may try as you like.
But the Trumpinator does not care.
He just Trumps on.
I can see it now--Trump's new election slogan--"It'll Hurt at First, but then It Might Get Better".
"But the Trumpinator does not care.
"He just Trumps on."
As I said goin’ in; he managed to not piss on the floor.
But, I don't know if that's gonna hold his extra 4%. And he's toast if he ends up with his initial 40% and no more.
I'm surprised he ever got above the 40%, but he did. Question is: Can he hold it?
It doesn't matter Lee.
Don't you see?
Trump cannot be stumped!
Never.
Not gonna happen.
And that's why Trump will win.
Mumbled threats starting to come out of the Trump campaign that he's not going to appear for the next two scheduled debates. Started with Rudy Guliani, and is beginning to spread inside Team Trump. (I think they'll rethink that one real quick.)
"It doesn't matter Lee.
"Don't you see?"
Oh, but it does matter. At 40% he does a blow-out loss; probably costs them the Senate along with it, maybe costs them the House of Representatives too.
Yeah that would be he case.
But it won't be.
Because you can't stump Trump.
Trump cannot be stumped.
That's your fallacy.
You think debates and whatnot can stump Trump.
They cannot.
Nothing is as unbeatable as an idea whose time has come.
Trump is that idea.
And he cannot get stumped.
So.
He'll win and take congress and the senate with him.
I still believe that we are (in general) saner than your average Euroweenie. I don't think he'll be able to hold that extra 4% over the Hating Hillary base he inherited from FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing when he took the Republican nomination. Not after they got a good look at him.
We shall see soon ‘nuff who's right.
Hillary has said she's okay with the idea of Trump skipping the next debate or even the next two debates. Says she'll show up to answer questions anyway. Trump can come or not as pleases him.
Mumbled threats starting to come out of the Trump campaign that he's not going to appear for the next two scheduled debates. Started with Rudy Guliani, and is beginning to spread inside Team Trump. (I think they'll rethink that one real quick.)
What?! Wussing out already? Well, most bullies do crumble quickly.
Hillary has said she's okay with the idea of Trump skipping the next debate or even the next two debates. Says she'll show up to answer questions anyway. Trump can come or not as pleases him.
True class will shine.
And Trump is making morning bitching ‘bout his microphone not working...
lol! Yeah, right. I heard him clearly enough when he tried to interrupt Clinton.
I just noticed something I thought odd. Nate Silver's ref="http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/">538 blog and the New York Times forecaster were tracking within a point of one another earlier this year in their predictions of the winner. This made sense, I thought, as Nate Silver used to work for the NYT and his 538 blog was published under their banner back in 2012. But, between the 2012 election and this year's election Silver went out on his own again. (Presumably either monetary issues or control issues with the New York Times bureaucracy; whatever, his affiliation with them has expired and he's out on his own again.)
Anyway, as I said earlier, they were tracking right on top of one another earlier in the year, and so I finally quit even checking the NYT forecast on the grounds that it was redundant. But, they have diverged in their predictions. Nate Silver gives Clinton a 56% chance as of right now, and the NYT forecaster gives Hillary a 70% chance, a difference of some 14%. I don't know what accounts for this differential when they used to track near identically. Think I'm gonna stick with Nate Silver's predictions though, as the gold standard. In either case, Trump's fading again.
Try again to get the link right to Nate Silver's 538 blog
Marcus will probably disagree.
"Trump supporters no doubt felt [dissatisfied with] their candidate
after watching the first debate. The surprise is not that Mrs. Clinton
prevailed but that she made it look so easy."
Wall Street Journal
FBI Director James Comey is getting hauled before a House investigating committee today to get reamed again for not recommending prosecution (of some sort, for something) against Hillary Clinton. Nobody knows what they're gonna recommend he investigate this time, but he's already said that his guys looked ‘real hard’ for a charge of Interference with Justice on the hopes Hillary had told somebody, anybody, to hide something, not answer some question, something, anything, and he found squat to prosecute, but they're not lettin’ up yet. So, now the Congressional Republicans are investigating the FBI for not filing charges against Hillary (don't know what charges--still lookin’ for those--gettin’ a long way from Benghazi here, and yet they're neither losin’ hope nor losin’ enthusiasm; won't lose hope or enthusiasm ‘til November ninth).
Lee: "Marcus will probably disagree."
Nah, not really. I do maintain he came off to a good start in te first 10 but he clearly lost as most knew he would. Hillary did better than expected though, I thought.
Then I'm not really a Trump supporter. Did a bit of trolling yesterday to see if I could get a rise out of ya before I went on to the more serious task of watching Narcos on DVD.
Truth be told I am disillusioned with the whole spectacle. I do NOT like Hillary but Trump is such an outlandish candidate I am amazed we're (well, you're) in the situation we're in.
I confess part of me relishes the thought of a Trump win though. Because of who it would piss off. For the lulz. But my heart is not in it and I can't honestly say I think it would be a good thing.
Hillary I have no doubt is more qualified. But I also intensly dislike her and I fear she'll bring her pro war, pro intervention record into the White House and we'll have basically the Neocon agendas back on the table, just in another cloak.
No good choices.
BTW, have you seen this:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/
Too soft on Hillary but they're doing a real number on Trump.
I had heard about the endorsement. I hadn't read their article. Hillary was also endorsed by the Dallas, Texas main newspaper (name escapes me just now). The first time they've ever endorsed a Democrat also.
Trump will undoubtedly either stay silent on those or claim a mass media consipiracy against him. Probably stay silent unless he's directly asked to comment on it, then claim conspiracy.
Donald Trump has no business getting anywhere close to the Oval Office. He is utterly unprepared and unfit for the office.
The Republican Party is coming apart at the seams, and he managed to sneak into the nomination while the Party is suffering what can only be described as its death throes. If their Party were not severely diseased there's no chance they'd have allowed a clown like him to grab the nomination. They're gonna have an epic fight among themselves over the next four years; probably result in a schism in the Party and its eventual dissolution. (It may very well be that Dubya's fear will be realized--he may well prove to have been the last Republican President ever.)
Lee: "It may very well be that Dubya's fear will be realized--he may well prove to have been the last Republican President ever"
Will that lead to a multi-party system or a Democrat one party state behemoth growing ever more Socialistic and repressive of diversive ideas?
RT (yes I know it's a Russian news outlet close to the Kremlin) has this on Syria:
https://www.rt.com/news/360690-us-arms-nusra-syria/
No matter what you think of that story it's damned obvious that the "rebels" against Al-Assad must be getting help from nation states in order to fight as hard as they have.
I think the Democratic Party will reorganize soon after the Republican Party collapses. Some Democrats will want to absorb the more centerist elements of the old Republican Party, (whatever form that collapse takes), and the Democrat's left wing will throw a hissy fit over that. The Democrats' left wing may even bolt the party and start their own political party. For a brief period there may be three or four parties able to mount national campaigns, but, in the end, the wingers on the left and the right will be closed out and there will emerge two mainstream political parties again.
(The problem the Republican Party has now is that the Republican ‘base’ is entirely correct. Their leaders have been stringing them along--big time. Eventually that had to catch up with them.)
I don't think it's any secret that some of our ersatz Arab ‘allies’ have been supporting al-Nusra (against our wishes, but there's little we can do about it except abandon our ersatz ‘allies’, and nobody in Washington seems to want to go there). I'm surprised they, i.e. the Russians, think it's a secret; I thought everybody knew.
Trump was the last fella on the list the Republican ‘establishment’ wanted to see grab the nomination. (Ted Cruz came in a strong second in the "last guy we wanted to see grab the nomination" listing, and yet those were the two last men standing.)
This was a revolt by the voters against their own party leaders.
In the end the Party Leaders have decided they've gotta go along with their restive voters, or they're gonna lose their positions as Party Leaders.
"There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."
usually attributed to Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin
sometimes attributed to Mahatma Gandhi
But, it's not gonna save the Republican Party, at least, I don't think so. And I believe they probably suspect that too. But, it is their only chance, and they're desperate enough to go for it.
And then you're stuck with a one party Governnment. As it was not intended by your forebears but as it was intended by later elites. Are YOU an elite Lee? I think not. And so you too will end uo in bondage as a mere serf, and your kids, and any grandchildren too. Slaves under the new one party Commissars.
"And then you're stuck with a one party Governnment."
Apparently you were not paying attention. The full-on collapse of the Republican Party will be followed closely by the re-organization of the Democratic Party and maybe a brief period when there may well be three (3) political parties capable of mounting national campaigns. (Maybe even four (4) political parties capable of mounting national campaigns.)
This is not repeat not "one party Government". Three is not one; four is even more not one.
Try to keep up. At least try to keep up with the simple concepts like counting to three (3) or four (4).
I think your prediction may be right, Lee, on what will transpire if the Republican party does beak up. We already have many smaller parties listing themselves on the ballots. We will just see more and eventually a consolidation again. But there will always be choices.
I do NOT like Hillary but Trump is such an outlandish candidate I am amazed we're (well, you're) in the situation we're in.
You know, Marcus, that is what is rather strange. I would have agreed with you before that debate. But when I was watching Hillary up there I couldn't help but respect and admire her gumption and fighting spirit. For the first time I felt that if I vote for her it will be because I actually like her, rather than because she is the lesser of two evils. I can also see why Bill married her.
I'll have to check out the articles later...
I see that the Senate has overridden Obama's veto of the law allowing lawsuits against KSA. The House is set to do the same.
I think the next thing is a constitutional challenge (probably by the Obama administration) on the grounds it's a prohibited ex post facto imposition of liability.
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
U.S. Constitution Art. 1 § 9 ¶ 3
"We already have many smaller parties listing themselves on the ballots.
And the Libertarian Party is seeing a surge like they haven't seen in…well, never before. The Green Party isn't making out so well this round, but they may pick up support too if they get a better candidate than Jill Stein to promote. (I don't think the Libertarian Party is a probable receptacle for the Republican's right-wing crazies though; they'll probably form up a Southern Conservative Party of some sort that'll hold together ‘til the current crop of angry old white men die off.)
Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.
And he thinks he has the temperament to be President of the United States.
Saudia Arabia cuts salaries.
According to a government decree published by state media, government ministers will take a 20% pay cut, while members of the Shura council -- an advisory body -- will take a 15% cut.
The collapse in oil prices since 2014 has forced the kingdom to make deep spending cuts. The country relies on oil for most of its revenue, and its budget deficit swelled to nearly $100 billion in 2015.
I see problems in the future.
Lynnette: "You know, Marcus, that is what is rather strange. I would have agreed with you before that debate. But when I was watching Hillary up there I couldn't help but respect and admire her gumption and fighting spirit. For the first time I felt that if I vote for her it will be because I actually like her, rather than because she is the lesser of two evils. I can also see why Bill married her."
You managed to conclude all that and still fall a sleep half way into it? You sure are impressionable.
Something to cheer up Marcus…
We have two people here who actually think Donald Trump won that debate. First we have one S.E. Cupp in The New York Daily News, then we have Daniel Henninger in the The Wall Street Journal
Dutch investigators have concluded that the missile which downed Malaysian flight 17 over the Ukraine was a Russian missile fired from insurgent territory, and that the launcher from which it was fired was spirited back to Russia immediately after the shoot-down. NYT
*sigh*
After listing all the attacks against her, and all the loved ones lost to ISIS, Um Hanadi said: "I fought them. I beheaded them. I cooked their heads, I burned their bodies."
She made no excuses, nor attempted to rationalize this. It was delivered as a boast, not a confession.
"This is all documented," she said. "You can see it on my Facebook page."
A strong ally is one thing, but a crazy one is another. While I applaud her fighting spirit, I don't think that responding with barbarity in kind is needed.
Cooked their heads?
You managed to conclude all that and still fall a sleep half way into it?
It is to her credit that I stayed awake that long! lol!
You sure are impressionable.
Debate isn't an easy thing. She prepared very well, Trump did not. As Hillary Clinton mentioned in the debate she has been preparing to be President for quite some time. There too, Trump has not. I think I prefer the candidate who at least makes a stab at preparing for the job.
Cooked their heads?
Well, even the writer of that article wasn't sure if that picture wasn't photo shopped. But I do remember that rumor that, I think it was Michael Yon, repeated about AQ cooking bodies. Is it real or is it used to terrify the enemy? Don't know. But for humanities sake I would hope it was faked.
Folks have been known to boil heads to clean the flesh off so the skulls can be displayed. It's generally referred to as boiling the skulls even though the skulls aren't yet clean when they go in. Cooking implies eating.
Word is that Trump has firmly instructed his people to quit admitting that he lost the first debate. (Apparently this is largely aimed at putting a stop to their efforts to make him prepare for the second debate, which he doesn't want to do.)
Lynnette: "Debate isn't an easy thing. She prepared very well, Trump did not. As Hillary Clinton mentioned in the debate she has been preparing to be President for quite some time. There too, Trump has not. I think I prefer the candidate who at least makes a stab at preparing for the job."
Still, to make up your mind so decisevely after half a debate based on the "gumption" shown by your favoured candidate, it seems pretty shallow to me. We have a word for that in swedish: "röstboskap" which translates to "voter livestock". Meaning folks who vote with their heart or gut without bothering to enable their brains too much and who more or less identify with one party so strongly they will vote for it come what may. Our Social Democrats used to have lots of those, but they are dying off generation to generation.
Now that is not to say you wouldn't have chosen Hillary anyway, I believe you already had made that choice. But crediting half of a debate, which you fell asleep watching, for your decision does not really speak of an open mind.
"…your decision does not really speak of an open mind."
I kinda recall she started out her explanation with the observation that she was already sold on being a Hillary voter. (I bet she can count to three (3) and four (4) as well.)
Lee: "Something to cheer up Marcus…
We have two people here who actually think Donald Trump won that debate. "
He did not win the debate. But it is possible he lost small enough for it to be considered a win over all.
One point we have not discussed much and one I think is important is Hillarys "deplorable" comment. That cost her a lot, more than most probably realise.
I know from having voted for the Moderates (M) in Sweden in 2006. I was basically happy with most of what they had done but worried about their lax immigrantion policies, the laxest in the western world. Come the 2010 vote I was leaning to the Sweden Democrats instead and our prime minister came on record saying "if you love Sweden you can't vote for SD". That was such a slap in the face I could never forgive him, because it was precisely BECAUSE I love Sweden I contemplated voting for SD. (I ended up voting for the Christian Democrats in that election but come 2018 I'll be all in for SD is how I feel now) Never again M, unless they make a very public apology.
You can't piss on voters, calling them racist or deplorable and hope to get them back. They WILL punish you, and for more than one term also. You lose them for good.
Hillary pissed on millions of voters who could (not most of 'em but some) have swung her way but now they never will.
"… but now they never will."
The ones who never will were never gonna. Her real challenge will be after she gets in office. The Republicans are gonna fight her tooth and nail on everything. It'll be as bad or even worse than their resist on all things at all costs disposition with Obama. Gonna be kinda hard for her to build up an enthusiastic re-election campaign after another four years of gridlock, which is what we're probably lookin’ at.
Still, the "deplorable" comment was a disaster for her.
Lee: "Her real challenge will be after she gets in office."
You seem to take her win for granted. To me it doesn't look so certain.
I've never believed Trump had a shot at winning. The Republican Party is dysfunctional. The country is not.
Cooking implies eating.
On a par with Jeffrey Dahmer. Blech!
Word is that Trump has firmly instructed his people to quit admitting that he lost the first debate. (Apparently this is largely aimed at putting a stop to their efforts to make him prepare for the second debate, which he doesn't want to do.)
I think they are recruiting Chris Christie in to shape him up.
Meaning folks who vote with their heart or gut without bothering to enable their brains too much and who more or less identify with one party so strongly they will vote for it come what may.
Now that's how I would describe some of those Trump supporters out there.
As for me, I vote either party depending upon which candidate I think is the best choice. Now for this election I had originally decided upon Hillary Clinton, despite some qualms, because Trump was, in my opinion, completely unfit. This debate made me feel better about that choice because Hillary not only stood up to attempted bullying by her opponent but she actually had the guts to put forth some concrete ideas, despite their possible unfavorable reception by some. Trump's vague promises do not even give people a chance to evaluate whether or not one could agree with him. Frankly she came across as far more likable, personality wise, as well. Something I hadn't really seen in the past, because I couldn't get past the politics and, admittedly, had listened too much to those who are Hillary Haters.
I really wasn't the one the candidates had to convince. It is the undecideds out there who should have been the target audience.
And, all joking aside, my ability to stay awake really has little to do with the content of what I am watching. It has more to do with what I have been doing during the day. :)
We have a third party who thinks Trump won the debate. This one's Monica Crowley writing in the Washington Times.
I think I'd have to rank her a clearly delusional.
Donald Trump, in another burst of native brilliance, has fired up an early morning tweet-storm against Alicia Machado, the one-time Miss Venezuela/Miss Universe, and against Hillary Clinton for being her "dupe". Politico.com
Yeah, they're talking about that on CNN. The anchor is currently trying to pin down a Trump spokesman on Trump's views and his behavior but she's a real slippery character.
Right now they're talking about Trump's saying he opposed the Iraq war yet he went on Howard Stern's radio program saying we should do it in 2002.
Huh! So much for that cease-fire in Syria. How on earth our government could believe that Russia and Syria would actually adhere to it is beyond me.
Their behavior is execrable to say the least.
"…she's a real slippery character."
Blonde, longish hair? KellyAnne Conway?
I think it was brown hair. But probably has the patter down just like KellyAnne.
They're not lettin’ Trump get too close to media folks these days. (They're also gonna havta start takin’ his phone away from him at night.)
How Could We?
By Thomas L. Friedman
(Strange, some articles won't let me copy and paste portions. Oh well, I tried.)
Good piece, to the point.
Yeah, I saw that the other day.
They were talking about millennials this morning and their being turned off by the major political parties. Their point was that it needs to be made clear what will happen if they vote for a third party candidate or not at all. They will in effect be electing Donald Trump. It is a sad statement that voting your choice will actually help a candidate that they are in a sense casting a protest vote against, but it is the case.
I know I have been there and done that. But in my case the result wasn't quite so critical. I think if I were in their position I would concentrate on the lower offices, such as those in the Senate or the House, as opposed to the Presidency. I would then vote for the candidate running for the Presidency that I felt might actually work with the people I had elected in those lower offices. It is sometimes better to nibble around the edges rather than try to swallow a meal whole.
I've mentioned before that I intend to watch the polls in my state. This is solid Republican territory; Trump's favored to win by a solid percentage, but if it's at all dicey--if Hillary's got any shot at all of getting our electoral votes, then I'm gonna havta vote for Hillary. If, as I suspect, she's got no shot, then I'm free to vote for somebody I think I'd actually like to see as President.
And, that would also be neither Johnson nor Jill Stein, just for what that's worth; havta take a pencil in with me I reckon.
It also appears that Trump is chomping at the bit to go after Hillary for Bill's infidelities.
Doesn't make sense to me. Guy who's very publicly cheated on his first two wives is now wanting to blame Hillary on account of Bill cheated on her. Doesn't look like a winner to me.
Lee: It also appears that Trump is chomping at the bit to go after Hillary for Bill's infidelities."
He might or he might not. He probably won't need to, unless Hillary comes upp with something and he needs to create a counter to that.
I'd say Trump is 70-30 in favour right about now. Yes, yes, I am aware newspapers do not portray this. But I have learned from own experience that when there's a PC and an un-PC choice the un-PC is drasticly under represented in polls.
It will be very interesting to me to see you, Lee and Lynnette, come up with an explanation once Trump wins.
Watch this, to the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r125XB89MlA
"Yes, yes, I am aware newspapers do not portray this."
FoxNews has Hillary up by 3 points nationally in a two-way race, and by 5 points if Johnson and Stein are included.
It looks like it's the other way around. She's up by 5 if it's just the two of them.
But either way it's close. The real question is what about those people who don't take polls. I know they are out there. I'm one of them.
That video is just a bunch of B.S., Marcus. Hillary Clinton is no more likely to go to war than was Obama. It's pure propaganda.
But I did find the Putin part rather interesting. He is intent on painting us the bad guy while he is he one who is engaging in bullying of neighbors and the destruction of Syria.
As for not burning through Russia's money, he doesn't seem to be doing a very good job so far.
It will be very interesting to me to see you, Lee and Lynnette, come up with an explanation once Trump wins.
And I will be interested in your reaction, Marcus, if he doesn't. :)
Here's one for you Marcus.
Refugees in America (Part 2)
"He might or he might not. He probably won't need to…"
He's already issued instructions to his minions (there have been leaks). There is some question regarding whether or not these instructions will be obeyed. His ‘campaign’ has ideas about how to run a campaign that differ somewhat from his own notions.
lol!
Somehow I think that's an understatement.
Hillary's campaign decided to send out some tweets at 3:20 a.m. this very morning to ridicule Trump's 3:20 a.m. twitter-storm from Friday. So far Trump hasn't answered back (somebody's got his phone away from him is my guess).
I notice that Trump has taken to airing charges that Hillary has been unfaithful to Bill Clinton, charges for which he has no basis. NBCNews He can only be trying to get a rise out of Hillary with this--he's trying to make her react, to force her to deny the allegation--better yet, force her to react emotionally.
Meantime, this has already been headlined as a Trump meltdown.
I don't think the female half of the electorate is gonna reward this kind of basesless speculation, good chunk of the male half ain't gonna approve of it either I don't reckon.
There is also the very real possibility that Trump will feel obliged to up the ante if this doesn't get him the reaction from Clinton that he desires. That may backfire too.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
David Plouffe, Campaign Manager for Barack Obama during his two two runs for the Presidency, apparently thinks like I do (or I think like he does--whichever). Neither of us ever thought Trump had a real shot. Slate
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Trump is blowing it
"To make a long story short, Donald Trump is the GOP nominee in a
year when a generic Republican would be favored to beat a generic
Democrat. Rather than running against a generic Democrat, he is
running against an unusually unpopular Democrat. And he is losing."
Vox
I notice that Trump has taken to airing charges that Hillary has been unfaithful to Bill Clinton, charges for which he has no basis.
Someone told me that he was going to try to go in that direction. I don't think that taking the sleaze path will help any, either. Frankly, I wouldn't blame her if she had.
That 3:00 twitter rant Trump indulged in seemed already to be a sign of a meltdown. Not at all a sign that he would be prepared for that 3 am phone call that might come through to the White House.
Post a Comment