Last weekend I went to see a movie. I
write about this today, on this day, because it reminded me of
something I had forgotten. So many people are worried that with the
advent of the new President we have forgotten what America really is.
Sure we have always had divisions, be they economic, racial, or
political. But this movie reminded me of what is the core strength
in my country. It is its people. Not one person, but all of us
together. And when the going gets tough we rally around each other.
No one is fully prepared for any
emergency situation. But on that day, and in its aftermath, many,
many people helped those in need, or helped to make sure that others
would not have to face a similar situation. This was their town,
their country. They would not let those who would seek to harm it or
tear it down succeed.
This is Boston strong, this is America
strong.
Never underestimate her.
150 comments:
Thanks Lynnette, I hadn't known about that movie. I'll make a point of seeing it. Boston is possibly my favourite city in the world :-)
Later today, just coincidentally overlapping with the whole presidential inauguration, I'll be watching another American great ... a live stage play of West Side Story. Can't wait.
CNN (Clinton News Network - epicenter of Fake News):
"If Trump is assassinated during inauguration Obama will get to pick the next President"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxIG4dduqy0
Imagine them doing a similar "news"cast about Obama just before he took office in 2008. Hard to imagine right?
I'm guessing from the positive comments supplied by the Boston cops that the movie didn't go into the issue of the police surrounding the two brothers, encircling them, and then firing several hundred rounds at one another, wounding several of themselves in the process (none fatally, thankfully). (contemporaneous NBC report) Nor, probably, did they mention that the police also managed to shoot up another entire Watertown Mass. neighborhood, another several hundred rounds fired there, in making the capture of a single, wounded, unarmed teenager cowering in the bottom of a boat hull.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I watched your film clip Marcus. Your ‘quote’ is a fake; there is no such language in that entire news report.
That's the jist of it, but yeah I shouldn't have used quotation marks.
"That's the jist of it…"
No, that's not the gist of it. That's an absurd interpretation. The report doesn't even qualify as news; it's just filler. And, we'd have to assume that CNN is trying to encourage the assassination of Barak Obama and Joe Biden and John Kerry along with Trump and Pence. That'd have the Democrats up in arms were it true. But, they're not up in arms because that's an absurd interpretation of that report. That's just the Right-Wingers being crazie-ass pretend fainting virgins again, all eager to hunt up something to be outraged over. (And goin’ a little overboard with it this time.)
Post Script:
(Actually, at first I wondered if maybe CNN hadn't decided to fight back. Trump started it; he has to whack on some of the more liberal media in order to convince his base voters that he's no longer the liberal Democrat that he was just a couple years ago. I was wondering if maybe they'd decided to fight back. Then I saw the report. It's just filler. CNN has three cable channels to fill 24/7; there's gonna be some filler on slow news days. And, along with the filler we got the crazie-ass right-wingers goin’ major fool on account of this is the best they can do for today for their necessary daily dosage of outrage.)
Marcus can quit being agitated now. Trump has been sworn in without incident.
I'm guessing from the positive comments supplied by the Boston cops that the movie didn't go into the issue of the police surrounding the two brothers, encircling them, and then firing several hundred rounds at one another, wounding several of themselves in the process (none fatally, thankfully). (contemporaneous NBC report) Nor, probably, did they mention that the police also managed to shoot up another entire Watertown Mass. neighborhood, another several hundred rounds fired there, in making the capture of a single, wounded, unarmed teenager cowering in the bottom of a boat hull.
Actually it's in the movie. The Watertown police had never dealt with anything like this. The Tsaernev brothers didn't just use guns, but pipe bombs when they stopped to confront the police.
This account was exactly what was depicted in the movie. Although perhaps there was some cinematic license with the affects of the pipe bombs thrown. After that, and the killing of the security officer, I can understand why the police might over estimate how dangerous the guy in the boat was.
Later today, just coincidentally overlapping with the whole presidential inauguration, I'll be watching another American great ... a live stage play of West Side Story. Can't wait.
That sounds like it will be fun. I love musicals. I am going to see a play this weekend. Not a musical, but it still should be good. They usually put on good productions.
[Marcus]: "If Trump is assassinated during inauguration Obama will get to pick the next President... Imagine them doing a similar "news"cast about Obama just before he took office in 2008. Hard to imagine right? "
Exactly right Marcus. Ole' Lee can huff and puff all he wants about this being "filler" and not news. Well they sure try to make it look like news with that eye catching "DEVELOPING NOW" banner. In any case there's nothing stopping it being filler and in bad taste. (Let's face it, the whole of CNN is filler in between so many ads that the channel is unwatchably awful).
Damn right nobody would have tried this on with Obama or Hillary. It's the same on this side of the pond where the TV coverage of the inauguration has been of a tenor that you would generally never have seen in connection with a US president. It's a whole new level even compared to Bush junior. Even forgetting about Trump, it's a sorry thing to see so many Americans abroad willing to bad-mouth the office of their own presidency in the interests of political partisanship.
I thought it was particularly sad to see that bunch of black students from Alabama excoriated for taking part in the inauguration parade. The students -- some of whom had never been outside their own state -- seemed to know more about the gravitas of the national event than some of the media who accused them of cashing in. It's a bit rich of Chumpy to complain about hysteria on the right when a college president (who says they applied to do the parade before the election) gets calls to resign and death threats. But then, the hysterical left has lost all sense of irony in this election season.
P.S. I see claims that "fake news" has overtaken the Swedish right.
"In any case there's nothing stopping it being filler and in bad taste."
Marcus wasn't huffing and puffing because it was ‘in bad taste’. I wasn't arguing that it was in good taste. You're trying too hard, way too hard. Tryin’ to make up for that last gaffe perhaps?
"Damn right nobody would have tried this on with Obama or Hillary."
You have got to be kidding. Tryin’ way too hard…
"…it's a sorry thing to see so many Americans abroad willing to bad-mouth the
office of their own presidency…"
I wasn't aware that the office of the American Presidency was considered such a sacred thing among the reactionary Irish. Must have something to do with needing somebody to stand in for authoritarianism on account of the Irish being now burdened with a liberal Pope.
Shorthands has opened his first morning as President with tweeted praises for FoxNews. (The Dancing Bear knows enough to know he's gonna need a PR arm given that he's currently only holding the Republican Congress via outright fear--needs the PR organization to keep the fear alive.)
Speaking of Shorthands and his tweets… I wasn't aware of this one until this morning. Thursday, day before his inauguration, Shorthands tweeted this: "It wasn't Donald Trump that divided this country, this country has been divided for a long time!"
And then he went on Friday morning to both open and close his inaugural speech with a fist pump in the air over his head. Let's face it folks--trying to unify the country is not what he's got in mind.
[Chumpy]: "You have got to be kidding. Tryin’ way too hard…"
Nope. I'll just have to count y'all among the type of 'liberuls' that adorn the TV screen of late. It ain't just that they're illiberal whingers -- they don't even know that they are. If y'all can't see the contrast between yesterday's CNN doleful coverage of the inauguration and the unadulterated glee with which they are reporting on today's assorted whingers, anarchists, and other ne'er-do-wells protesters, y'all are just about as blind as would've expected. Y'all are gonna remain blithely ignorant of why yer own country people elected someone -- anyone -- that they hope will change the pervasive stifling groupthink.
[Chumpy]: "I wasn't aware that the office of the American Presidency was considered such a sacred thing among the reactionary Irish."
Oh don't worry, the reactionary Irish are having their own protests today. Y'all don't have a monopoly on the ugly pro-abortion, militant feminist factions that are jumping on this bandwagon and pretending to "Love Trump's Hate".
[Chumpy]: "Speaking of Shorthands...
I didn't think much of the people who referred to the previous guy as Big Ears or Obummer. It don't get any cleverer for Trump.
Watching Trump speak at CIA headquarters. His message, besides complaining about the media, is telling the intel community: "I am so behind you".
CNN is now parsing Trump's talks. They are somewhat bewildered by the content of the speech, as quite a bit seemed to go off on tangents not relevant to the CIA.
"If y'all can't see the contrast between yesterday's CNN doleful coverage…"
I don't do CNN. Too far out for cable and not interested enough to buy satellite and have a bunch more channels I don't watch. You're wasting your time with that.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I didn't think much of the people who referred to the previous guy as
Big Ears or Obummer. It don't get any cleverer for Trump."
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that I might give a damn what you think ‘bout it.
Damn right nobody would have tried this on with Obama or Hillary.
I well remember someone circling the story that Obama wasn't a US citizen because he didn't have a US birth certificate, which was untrue.
Large marches taking place for people's rights. Listening to the interviews, they don't like Trump. They are angry about Trump's remarks about women and are concerned that he won't uphold their rights or the rights of other people in the States.
Cher, who is there: "Stand up and be counted, or sit there and be nothing".
It's going to be an ineresting 4 years.
"…quite a bit seemed to go off on tangents…"
Classic Trump; part of his shtick.
"I well remember someone circling the story that Obama wasn't a US citizen…"
I remember Sarah Palin circulating a rifle crosshairs superimposed as part of her campaign literature. I remember Trump, his very own self, out of his very own mouth, suggesting that the "Second-Amendment People" might want to take care of Hillary in their own unique fashion. Hell this shit comes down from the top on the other side (and that don't even count what they put up on FoxNews after prime time and RadioRightWing all the time). We don't have to intentionally misinterpret some basically innocuous filler piece from CNN; they come right out with it.
"It's going to be an ineresting 4 years."
They'll run outta energy after awhile. They're just pissed on account of they didn't turn out against Trump, and the Republicans win when turnout's down. But, they'll ease their guilt with some protests and then run down. (But, it will still be an interesting four years; that part's true ‛nuff.)
lol!!!
Elizabeth Warren: "We will not build a stupid wall"
Police are estimating 120,000 to 125,000 in Boston.
Marches in New York, marches in DC, marches in Denver. Marches here, marches there, marches everywhere.
Sorry Petes, they aren't all left wing wingnuts. I believe in women's rights too.
By the way, I've been listening to the week-end crew on RadioRightWing and they've already let me in on a little piece I missed from Trump's inauguration speech. Something about patriotism and bigotry not going together. Seems that's gonna be their marker for the argument that affirmative action is unpatriotic and that federal scrutiny of renewed voter suppression in the Old South is unpatriotic and whole bunch of how comes for how come it's unpatriotic to not allow the straight white conservative folks to suppress them other un-American bastards.
[Chumpy]: "I don't do CNN... You're wasting your time with that."
Nope, not wasted at all. We've now established that y'all don't know what yer talkin' about. You have no up to date first hand knowledge of CNN's newscasting style at all. So you just pulled yer earlier assertions out of yer ass. You were just bellyachin'.
[Chumpy]: "You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that I might give a damn what you think ‘bout it."
That one's getting a bit old, dontcha think? Maybe try a bein' a bit more creative with the gratuitous whinges?
[Chumpy]: "I well remember someone circling the story that Obama wasn't a US citizen because he didn't have a US birth certificate, which was untrue. "
So yore holdin' CNN to the standard of Fox News? I'm sure CNN would thank y'all for that :-/
"So you just pulled yer earlier assertions out of yer ass."
You really do need to pay attention. I watched Marcus' posted video (twice). I also noticed he'd faked up a quote to enhance his otherwise lame argument (even he didn't think it was good ‛nuff to stand up on it's own.) It's a filler piece being intentionally misinterpreted. I watched it; I saw it; I know what it is. They were not trying to incite an assination. You're being absurd. I got that one down solid.sf
I don't need to watch hours of CNN to know what I was lookin’ at there.
Yeah, I see the typo.
[Lynnette]: "Sorry Petes, they aren't all left wing wingnuts. I believe in women's rights too."
So do I. And yes, they're not all left wingnuts, just the vast majority of the organisers are.
George Friedman thinks he has teased out a ‘coherent, if radical, foreign policy’ from Shorthand's various scattered statements of intent. So he thinks. I think Friedman has allowed himself to fall victim to the human tendency to ‘see’ patterns where none actually exist. He shall be severely disappointed. (But, that fate awaits the majority of the Trumpkins, I do believe.)
And yes, they're not all left wingnuts, just the vast majority of the organisers are.
I won't hold that against them.
LOl! So they were just talking about Trump's remarks about the news media's video of his crowd size. The one anchor says, deadpan, "I can't think of anything more important to the American people". And we are only one day into Trump's presidency. SNL is going to have field day.
Shorthands has a big crowd. No complaints in that department.
[Lynnette]: "I won't hold that against them."
So what are the protests actually about then? Around the world, from what I can see, it is primarily (perhaps almost exclusively) organised by 1) radical socialists, 2) pro-abortion lobbyists. You don't have that many real socialists in the US, being way to the right of most of the rest of us, but I did see a large pro-abortion element to the marches. Then there was the usual assortment of radical feminists, gender lobbies of all types, and anarchists. Madonna, who announced that "the revolution starts here", is vying to be all those things rolled into one.
Ultimately, it was basically the Hillary crowd out to complain that they lost the election. I heard the same when Bush Jr got elected. Some people only like democracy when it goes their way.
I notice that Shorthands has decided to double down on his claims of huuuuggge crowds for his inaugeration. (YahooNews) And he continued to rage against the media (other than FoxNews).
It occurs to me… He isn't used to having to stick around for a fight; he's used to sowing confusion, grabbing at stuff during the confusion, and quickly moving on. (Petes appears to be taking lessons on this, but Petes doesn't have it down pat yet; but, I digress….) I'm not sure how Shorthands is gonna be able to handle it when he can't move on to a new audience, a new subject, and get far enough away to be fully out of the splatter zone for whatever bullshit he was last slinging. He's not used to not being able to move on. This may be a problem for him.
Somebody's noticed that Shorthands' speechwriters borrowed his populism from the Evil Villain Bane from the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" (TVGuide) (Yes, I know Shorthands claims to have written it himself, but nobody believes that.)
And, before I go for the night… I'm not one to sympathize much with Hillary Clinton. But…
Rest of her life she's gonna havta deal with the fact that she lost to this clown, and, in spite of James Comey's final days' intervention, in spite of Putin's assistance for Trump, she could have won if she'd just not been quite so complacent. I gotta feel sorry for her havin’ to live with that.
Petes,
So what are the protests actually about then?
The evil news media have been going around asking that very question. It appears that, while these marches may have been organized by activists, they have given people, who have not felt their voices have been heard by the new administration, a chance to voice their concerns about some of the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. There are people here who are genuinely concerned for the rights of women being eroded, or the possible discrimination of various groups of people, or the taking away of health care benefits because of possible policy decisions that will be made by the new president. People are worried about being deported. People are worried about the kind of world their daughters will grow up in. People are worried about living in an America that is isolationist or condones hate. I can understand exactly how they feel. I may not always agree with a Michael Moore, but that would not make me hesitate to participate in this march if I lived near enough to do so.
What has kind of amazed me, though, is that there are so many marches going on in other parts of the world. If nothing else, that should tell the new administration how important it is to the world for America to lead. And lead in a just way. They don't want that "shining city upon a hill" to dim. Because even if they don't actually live there, it still provides hope for the future.
Come next Monday, when people go back to work or school, the events of the weekend will fade. But hopefully the spirit that lived within people's hearts won't. Because like the words spoken in one of the scenes in the movie in my post, love defeats hate. And we've had enough of hate.
I notice that Shorthands has decided to double down on his claims of huuuuggge crowds for his inaugeration.
This just seems to reinforce the impression I have of the huuuuuggge size of this man's ego. He seems focused on himself, not on the needs of the country, despite what his supporters may think.
"He seems focused on himself…"
Well, yeah, that's been noticed before. He approaches all issues with an eye towards, "How does this impact me?" Always has; always will. This is almost, "Well, duh! territory.
This is almost, "Well, duh! territory.
One would think. But I have actually talked to someone who has totally missed that aspect of his remarks. And she had turned somewhat anti-Trump in the past. No, she has missed some of this because of the smoke Trump was throwing in people's eyes in his inaugural speech about fighting the Washington establishment and shaking up the status quo. Strangely enough Trump is still tapped into that anger that so many people feel about the gridlock that is Washington, never mind that the GOP has just as much to do with that as do the Democrats. Never mind that Trump has put in place people who are very much a part of the economic establishment that had so much to do with the Great Recession.
Hmmm...I was just listening to one of the people Fareed Zakaria was interviewing, and her take on Trump is that she believes he will be a destructive, but not transformational, figure. So maybe we can weather this storm.
"…a destructive, but not transformational, figure…"
Kinda my take on it. I've said before that I expect the Republic to survive with reasonably limited, and repairable, damage. There's another of your readers who's fairly desperate for me to start feelin’ hysterical, but I don't think Shorthands'll last long enough before he fatally pisses off the Congressional Republicans, not long enough for me to be hysterical ‛bout him anyway. He's holding them now with with a combination of fear and fantasy, heavy on the fear portion, and that's only gonna last him so long.
(By the way, if you get a chance to see Chuck Dodd on Meet the Press go at it with Kellyanne Conway, you should watch it. Not because he got the better of the exchange, he came up a draw at best, but it'll tell ya something about how fast the traditional Trump tricks are wearing off with the press.)
[Lynnette]: "It appears that, while these marches may have been organized by activists, they have given people, who have not felt their voices have been heard by the new administration, a chance to voice their concerns about some of the things Donald Trump said during the campaign."
Most of them didn't listen to what he said during the campaign (otherwise they wouldn't be so mystified now). Why do they expect to be heard now, especially when they seem to act as if half their own country people don't exist?
"There are people here who are genuinely concerned for the rights of women being eroded..."
That's generally coded language for abortion advocacy. I can't think of any other women's "rights" that have been threatened by Trump. If so, I hope they're right as abortion is the greatest evil of modern times.
"...or the taking away of health care benefits because of possible policy decisions that will be made by the new president."
Except Trump doesn't seem set on a repeal of the AHCA without any replacement. And he does seem more likely to tackle the insurance cartels than Hillary would have done.
"People are worried about being deported."
Why would any citizen of the USA worry about being deported? That would be illegal, and no president has the right to change that.
"People are worried about the kind of world their daughters will grow up in."
Are they some kind of gender bigots? Men's lives matter too. What specific problems are daughters facing?
"People are worried about living in an America that is isolationist"
That one sounds like a valid concern, but I didn't see any placards about it yesterday (and I mean not one).
"...or condones hate."
No sensible person thinks in good faith that the new administration condones hate.
"What has kind of amazed me, though, is that there are so many marches going on in other parts of the world."
That's because Trump's election provides a great bandwagon. Speaking for the marches in this small part of the world, it's just another opportunity for anarchists and socialist activists who find an excuse to march all the time anyway. I suspect you will find similar elsewhere.
"Most of them didn't listen to what he said during the campaign
(otherwise they wouldn't be so mystified now)."
Listening to what Trump said during the campaign wouldn't shed much light on what he's gonna do now that he's won. He managed to take both sides of almost every single issue, often within the space of a single speech; sometimes within a single sentence, when he could manage to speak in actual sentences (with a few exceptions for his few trademark rant issues, those he managed to keep consistent--usually). The few issues he managed to be consistent about he's not gonna be able to pull off anyway--the Republicans aren't gonna fund his wall, nor are the Mexicans. Rounding up millions of illegals can't really go any faster than it's going now--Obama's been pushing the system almost to its limits already. (At least, it's not gonna go any faster without more funding for more agents and mostly more courts and court appointed defense lawyers, which the Republican Congress isn't gonna give him.)
"No sensible person thinks in good faith that the new administration
condones hate."
That's not true; not even close to true. There a lot of sensible people out there who think Shorthands at the very least condones hate. (Lot of the haters think so too.) It's convenient for him.
"What specific problems are daughters facing?"
Among them are fat old men who think they should be able to decide for somebody else's daughter whether or not she has to carry a fetus to term.
[Chumpy]: "He managed to take both sides of almost every single issue... The few issues he managed to be consistent about he's not gonna be able to pull off anyway..."
So, ignorin' the fact that I didn't address those questions to Yer Chumpiness, yore point is that Trump's policies are either ambiguous or will be unenforceable. That's yer answer as to why people "came out to voice their concerns". Seems to be much ado about nothin' then by yer own analysis, eh Chumpy?
[Me]: "No sensible person thinks in good faith that the new administration condones hate."
[Chumpy]: "That's not true; not even close to true. There a lot of sensible people out there who think Shorthands at the very least condones hate. (Lot of the haters think so too.)"
Unsurprisingly in yer rush to rant, y'all ignored the bit about "good faith". Haters ain't actin' in good faith. Nor are protestors who piggyback their unrelated issue du jour on the Trump inauguration.
"Among them are fat old men who think they should be able to decide for somebody else's daughter whether or not she has to carry a fetus to term."
Yore hysteria is makin' ya incoherent. Shouldn't they be out stalking fat old men with their baby killer slogans, then? At the very least, they have no reason to think that Trump will do anything different from recent Republican administrations, i.e. defund Planned Parenthood, and tinker with the Supreme Court as the opportunity arises.
"That's yer answer as to why people came out ‛to voice their concerns’"
Nah, I'm leaving that to Lynnette. I just corrected some of your more egregious misstatements. Figured I'd save her some time there; she could get right to the questions if she didn't have waste knocking down your factually challenged setup pieces.
"Haters ain't actin' in good faith."
Now you're just bein’ silly; they think they have a good reason for hatin’, almost always they think that.
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind…"
R.A. Heinlein -- The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
"Shouldn't they be out stalking fat old men with their baby killer
slogans, then?"
Not worthy of a response; seriously, not worthy. If Lynnette disagrees then this one's hers.
[Chumpy]: "Hillary ... could have won if she'd just not been quite so complacent."
LOL. She could have won if she'd been clued in to what's going on in the country. Just like you could've called the election right if ya were clued in, the media might not have been so dismissive, and those protestors might have voted instead of complainin' after the fact.
Like Trump's supposedly clue in? He's admitted in public that he went into election night expecting to lose. He didn't have it either. That was a true black swan event. Every once in awhile they do happen--that's how there comes to be a name for the phenomenon.
[Chumpy]: " I just corrected some of your more egregious misstatements."
Nope, ya just highlighted the pointlessness of yer own response. It was reminiscent of how the lefties wanted Bush to simultaneously be as dumb as a box of rocks and also have Machiavellian designs on middle eastern oil. Can't have it both ways.
"they think they have a good reason for hatin’, almost always they think that."
Course they do. Just like the protestors think they have a reason to protest. Doesn't mean they're not anti-democratic advocates for evil. See how that works? The "liberal"/left's supreme lack of ability to see things from anything other than their own perspective is one of the real eye-openers of Trump season.
"Not worthy of a response; seriously, not worthy. If Lynnette disagrees then this one's hers."
Y'all sure are mixed up about what points are addressed to you. Unless you are in some kind of tag team with Lynnette, y'all have some neck leavin' yore "fat old men" issues to her. That was yore point in response to a question ya weren't asked, not hers.
Still not worthy of a response. You tryin’ to puff it up didn't help it.
"Doesn't mean they're not anti-democratic advocates for evil. See how
that works?"
I see how that works. Change subjects and try to move to the new subject (but, you knew and relied heavily this trick long before you began to study on Trump; it's probably just coincidental that it's also one of his favorite moves).
[Chumpy]: "Like Trump's supposedly clue in? He's admitted in public that he went into election night expecting to lose. He didn't have it either. That was a true black swan event. Every once in awhile they do happen--that's how there comes to be a name for the phenomenon."
Yep, and I reckon y'all didn't bother to read its complete description ... about how such an event also "is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight". Y'all, the media, and the protestors, still blind to whats happening. Y'all are surely setting yerself up for more of this.
You're thinkin’ you showed genius when all happened is ya picked a position from an excess of perversity and ya got lucky. Damn near guaranteed that you're settin’ yourself up for a fail. (Trump's makin’ the same mistake; so you are apparently learning something from him; even if it's the wrong things.)
Anyways, I can see y'all have gone into invincibly obstinate mode. I will leave ya to stew for a while.
Ciao for now.
Pete: "So what are the protests actually about then?"
Who cares? Who knows? I'm not sure they know themselves tbh.
Let's forget about that and focus on the fact that Trump got more fat women out walking in one day than Michelle Obama did in 8 years. That should count for something.
Shorthands has signed an executive order declaring his ‛intention’ to renegotiate the NAFTA treaty. This has no legal effect that I know of. He has likewise declared his ‛intention’ to withdraw from the TPP. This has not yet been ratified, so an executive order here will effectively kill that off and surrender trade advantages in the Pacific Rim market to the Chinese.
[Marcus]: "Who cares? Who knows? I'm not sure they know themselves tbh."
Well, I read this from Britain's left wing Guardian paper and I'm still none the wiser. Apparently it's about not feeling alone (in what?).
Not feeling alone in this maybe?:
http://www.memes.com/img/1093909
Joke aside, you might wan't to have a look at this Pete:
"The Guardian has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet, Vox, talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as “a grassroots effort” with “independent” organizers."
[...]
"It’s an idea that I, a liberal feminist, would embrace. But I know — and most of America knows — that the organizers of the march haven’t put into their manifesto: the march really isn’t a “women’s march.” It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump."
[...]
"By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”)."
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/20/billionaire-george-soros-has-ties-to-more-than-50-partners-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/
Newsflash: It has been discovered that George Soros has funded multiple liberal organizations across the globe! Some of these organizations recently participated in a protests against Trump! The global conspiracy has been unmasked!
Sean Hannity is opening his three hour RadioRightWing show for today with reasons why federal government agencies must be prevented from using social media platforms they have developed over the years (specifically, Twitter). Apparently Shorthands has determined this to be a threat to his administration.
And, Shorthands has a couple of his White House aids, previously Trump Campaign staffers, over at the Voice of America offices making sure his White House has the appropriate level of control over both tone and content without the need to go through traditional channels of control. Politico.com
[Petes]: Most of them didn't listen to what he said during the campaign (otherwise they wouldn't be so mystified now).
Considering that they are protesting what they think are going to be policies they disagree with, they must have been listening, no?
[Petes]: Why do they expect to be heard now, especially when they seem to act as if half their own country people don't exist?
Everybody lives in hope. Oh, no, I am sure they are aware there are other people in the country, whom they vehemently disagree with, who are now in control of the reigns of government.
That's generally coded language for abortion advocacy. I can't think of any other women's "rights" that have been threatened by Trump. If so, I hope they're right as abortion is the greatest evil of modern times.
I am sure many are pro-choice. But it is not just that. With Trump's remarks on what behavior towards women was acceptable, he in effect gave the okay to treat women like sex objects. No woman wants to be treated as if her only function in life is to be a plaything.
Except Trump doesn't seem set on a repeal of the AHCA without any replacement. And he does seem more likely to tackle the insurance cartels than Hillary would have done.
Given his tendency to reverse himself he does not inspire confidence that he will follow through on the replacement portion of that thought. There are also the GOP legislators who have not come up with any real plan for replacement, who seem to think that repeal without an immediate replacement is perfectly acceptable. For many people any gap in coverage can mean they are left with no recourse for health care.
Why would any citizen of the USA worry about being deported? That would be illegal, and no president has the right to change that.
What we have here are many people who were brought here as children by their parents, who are not US citizens. They have grown up here, and are very much American. They are in effect innocent of wrong doing and should have a path to citizenship without having to go back to their home countries to apply and wait for years to be able to come back to what is really their home.
Are they some kind of gender bigots? Men's lives matter too. What specific problems are daughters facing?
See my above response to your abortion remarks.
[Lynnette]: "People are worried about living in an America that is isolationist"
[Petes: That one sounds like a valid concern, but I didn't see any placards about it yesterday (and I mean not one).
Maybe not, but I have read various comments by people in my paper regarding this. Just because there were no visible signs at the marches doesn't mean those people weren't there. Not everyone carried a sign.
No sensible person thinks in good faith that the new administration condones hate.
Trump's remarks about different groups of people, such as immigrants from Mexico or Muslims, do not give that impression.
Speaking for the marches in this small part of the world, it's just another opportunity for anarchists and socialist activists who find an excuse to march all the time anyway. I suspect you will find similar elsewhere.
Oh, yes, I am sure there are fringe elements involved as there always are. But the extent of these marches around the country and the numbers imply that there are many mainstream people involved as well.
Btw, some of the concerns are not all about policy. One of the marchers brought their baby along who wore a shirt which said: "If I wanted a baby for president, I would have nominated myself". Judging by Trump's focusing on the attendance figures at his inaugural when he should actually be concentrating on governing and his thin skinned tweeting I thought that rather apt.
[Petes]: Just like you could've called the election right if ya were clued in, the media might not have been so dismissive, and those protestors might have voted instead of complainin' after the fact.
I am confused as to why you are making the assumption that the protesters did not vote, as more than half of the people in the US did not vote for Trump.
The marches should really be a warning to Trump and the Republican legislators that they do not have a mandate for all of their policy changes. What it looks like to me is that we are in one of our periodic cycles of the pendulum swinging wildly between left and right. We have always worked best when we have a more moderate oscillation.
As POLITICO reported last month, that change – along with a prior shift that allows the network to legally reach a U.S. audience -- had stoked fears among some agency officials that Voice of America could serve as an unfettered propaganda arm for the former reality TV star.
Probably a valid concern given that Trump's White House spokesman appears to be a reincarnation of Baghdad Bob.
I presume you also noticed that the Trump administration is attempting to assert tight White House control over all traditionally domestic government information outlets. Mon Jan 23, 04:12:00 pm ↑↑
[Lynnette]: "Considering that they are protesting what they think are going to be policies they disagree with, they must have been listening, no?"
I genuinely doubt it. Of course with such a large number of organisers there is to be uncertainty about the actual aims of the protests. My own assessment is that they have two primary concerns. The first is simply that they favour "progressive" values to conservative ones and simply dislike Trump. That is why people around the world were motivated to march in addition to those in the US. The second -- and I would say overwhelmingly the largest single specific issue -- is abortion. This one is not directed at Trump in particular, since any Republican administration would be more restrictive in that area. Each change of party in government since Reagan has flip-flopped on the Mexico protocol. Btw, it will be interesting to see if the annual March for Life which attracts hundreds of thousands of marchers to DC every year gets more than the usual blind eye from the media next Friday. I doubt it.
[Lynnette]: "I am sure many are pro-choice. But it is not just that. With Trump's remarks on what behavior towards women was acceptable, he in effect gave the okay to treat women like sex objects. No woman wants to be treated as if her only function in life is to be a plaything."
This is the bit I really don't get. Trump's language on the famous tape was crass and ignorant, and his excuse of "locker room talk" glossed over the fact that he was nearly sixty when he said it. Personally I intensely dislike that sort of language -- but I've heard it often and I'm not naive enough to think that most men don't engage in at some time, at least in jest or in shows of bravado. I'd consider my own attitude the minority one. However, somehow the world has had a severe attack of prudishness when it comes to Trump. Yes he was an idiot -- like all men are from time to time. No, he wasn't seriously condoning sexual assault. The faux outrage over his remarks are nearly as childish as the remarks themselves. And in any case, if people are serious about tackling objectification of women there are several current trends -- from advertising to online pornography -- that are doing actual, serious harm. Unfortunately, pointing this out tends to draw accusations of .... prudishness.
(... cont'd)
(cont'd ...)
[Lynnette]: "What we have here are many people who were brought here as children by their parents, who are not US citizens. They have grown up here, and are very much American. They are in effect innocent of wrong doing and should have a path to citizenship without having to go back to their home countries to apply and wait for years to be able to come back to what is really their home."
As many have pointed out, the Obama administration had already stepped up deportations. Trump will have have his hands full just dealing with his criminal migrants. I suspect it will be a long time before anyone gets to the children of long term illegals, by which time the debate will probably have advanced.
[Lynnette]: "One of the marchers brought their baby along who wore a shirt which said: "If I wanted a baby for president, I would have nominated myself". Judging by Trump's focusing on the attendance figures at his inaugural when he should actually be concentrating on governing and his thin skinned tweeting I thought that rather apt."
That's funny. He was quite an idiot about it. Especially when he could have easily spun his low turnout along the lines of: "I'm here for the little guy who can't afford to travel to DC for the event".
[Lynnette]: "I am confused as to why you are making the assumption that the protesters did not vote, as more than half of the people in the US did not vote for Trump."
I was making a sweeping generalisation, but it's true that about a sixth of Democrat voters who turned out for Obama in '08 didn't show up for Hillary.
[Lynnette]: "The marches should really be a warning to Trump and the Republican legislators that they do not have a mandate for all of their policy changes. What it looks like to me is that we are in one of our periodic cycles of the pendulum swinging wildly between left and right. We have always worked best when we have a more moderate oscillation."
I think moderate politics in the USA has been over for some time. Maybe it'll come back if both sides genuinely seek a rapprochement.
Lynnette: "The marches should really be a warning to Trump and the Republican legislators that they do not have a mandate for all of their policy changes."
Of course they do. They just won the White House, the Senate and Congress. If that's not a mandate I don't know what is.
That won't change cause of 10K paid Soros instigators leading 2 million butthurt lemmings in burning shit and whining like bitches on the streets of Washington for the scope of one day. If they had staying power, maybe, but they've already got the selfie from their "Big Protest" up on Facebook so they're done now. Buh-bye!
"If that's not a mandate I don't know what is."
Let me help ya with that. mandate
And, remember, Trump's victory represents a move on part of the Republic to match, on presidential election level, the structural advantage the Republicans have long enjoyed on Congressional level. (I.e. more votes have been cast for Democratic candidates for the House and Senate than for Republican candidates, but the Republicans have gathered majorities in those legislative bodies anyway.) This structural advantage did not used to manifest in the Presidential elections, but that seems to have changed. It's long been known that the Democrats have to run about a 5 to 7 percent vote advantage to come out even in congressional elections. Now it's becoming apparent they'll have to run a bigger vote advantage than they've been accustomed to needing (probably in excess of 3% now) to win in the Presidential elections--that's new, but it looks like it's also real.
"No, he wasn't seriously condoning sexual assault."
Of course he most certainly was, for himself at least, if not for others. (You'll have noticed how delighted he's been to assert his own exemption from ethics and conflict-of-interest laws.
"Maybe it'll come back if both sides genuinely seek a rapprochement."
I don't think that'll come back until the Republicans lose enough more votes to make their structural advantages useless against the tide. And that will happen before too long; Trump is probably their last grasp at power.
When they can't rig the game anymore they'll want forbearance and consideration from the other side. Until then, they're not gonna be much interested in giving any. (Marcus' claim of a minority mandate up above is pretty well in step with their thinking.
By the way, I've been reviewing some analyses of the voters who voted for Trump. A surprisingly high percentage of them believe that Trump doesn't really mean the things he says when he says things they disagree with, but that he does mean what he says when he says things they do agree with. (Kinda like Petes saying that Trump didn't really condone sexual assault, when obviously, fairly obvious to the rest of us anyway, Trump meant exactly that. I also recall a social worker from Kentucky whose job it was to sign people up for ObamaCare who insisted that Trump really didn't intend to repeal ObamaCare. Just an example--point being, Petes is not alone in his willing embrace of delusional thinking in the service of the Shorthands.)
Hmmmm… "…willing embrace of delusional thinking…" That's probably phrasing it wrong. Probably should be "eager embrace of delusional thinking…".
Just so you don't feel too picked on there Petes; it wasn't too long ago that Marcus was telling us that he didn't believe Trump was gonna be a protectionist type; he was sure Trump was a closet free-trader (hell he may still be sure in spite of the rather conclusive evidence to the contrary). Big wall, no trade barriers; that's what Marcus was tellin’ us.
It's goin’ exactly the other way, of course. No wall; Mexico ain't payin’ for it and the Republican Congress isn't gonna pay for it either (not as long as ladder are cheap). And Trump is already tossing out the free-trade treaties and talking about protectionist tariffs (which he can impose by Presidential edict; doesn't have to wait for Congress on those).
Word is out that Trump has asked James Comey to stay on at the FBI, at least for now. (This is pretty much irrelevant, PR type stuff. Comey was appointed in 2013 to a 10 year term--he's got the job ‛til 2023 unless he decides to resign sooner. I'm not sure why the media is making a newsworthy deal of it, but they are--anticipating a slow news day perhaps.)
Trump is hanging a panoramic picture of his inaugural crowds in both the "upper" and "lower" press halls where White House correspondents will get to view them. (Thought I'd throw this one in just in case either Marcus or Petes is still of the opinion that the press is the one who's stoking the fires of conflict with the Trump administration. Conflict with the media is a integral part of Trump's public relations strategy. He will continue to stoke it where necessary to make sure the conflicts he creates do not cool of their own accord.)
[Petes]: "No, he wasn't seriously condoning sexual assault."
[Chumpy]: "Of course he most certainly was, for himself at least, if not for others."
For someone who engages in so much bravado yoreself, I can only presume it doesn't suit ya to see it in others on this occasion.
So, you're abandoning the argument that he didn't actually condone sexual assault. Now you're going to argue that he didn't actually mean what he said when he clearly did condone it. Change the argument, but simultaneously pretend you didn't lose the original argument. You're studying up on his methods rather closely, aren't you.
And, of course, now you've changed the argument to one about mindreading--an argument that can go on almost forever if you just stay slippery enough and keep on arguing about it.
So, we are supposed to let you tell us what's in Shorthands' mind are we?
But, Petes does bring us back to where I started this one. A surprisingly high percentage of Shorthands' followers are eager to believe that he doesn't mean what he says when says things they disagree with or cannot defend. They all maintain that Shorthands only means what he says when he says things they like or things they can defend. (Problem for Shorthands is they don't all like the same things nor are they all willing to defend the same things. So, the fantasies his followers indulged themselves in during the campaign cannot be fully maintained now the the campaign is over. The reality of making decisions will eventually intrude; pursuit of some things will necessarily exclude the possibility that Shorthands didn't really mean it, or will exclude other possibilities. Their fantasies are about to take a major hit; their fantasies are soon to come into conflict with one another. Petes' fantasies included.)
And then, of course, after Shorthands claimed he didn't really go around groping unwilling women, there's all those women who stepped forward to call him on that bullshit. Petes just ignores them--liars all I suppose--more mindreading from Petes.
Ciao for now.
[Chumpy]: "So, you're abandoning the argument that he didn't actually condone sexual assault. Now you're going to argue that he didn't actually mean what he said when he clearly did condone it... And, of course, now you've changed the argument to one about mindreading"
To condone something is to approve, accept, or sanction. You're the one who believes you can infer this from foolish private banter in which one man tries to impress another with his machismo. It may be lamentable, but it's not uncommon, and rarely means much in reality. Unless you have lived under a rock (which is quite possible) you know this. So excuse me if I construe yer mindreading as more than a touch biased.
I wonder if Chumpy thinks a certain Saturday Night Live writer really condones calling a ten-year-old child out as a future murderer? Perhaps in Chumpy-land tweeting it to the planet is less serious than private banter?
That's the best ya can come up with?
Surely you can do better.
Try. I'll give ya 'nother shot at it.
Trump never condoned sexual assaults. He merely made the correct and frankly obvious observation that a certain type of woman tend to throw themselves at rich and famous men. It's basically genetically imprinted in the DNA of women to go for the Alpha if an opportunity to do so presents itself. Means the Alpha can "get away with" stuff towards women most other men couldn't get away with, which was Trump's whole point. And it's 100% true. It's fact. Didn't start with Trump, won't ever change and pointing this out is not a crime.
Look at the crowds of a Justin Bieber concert. You tellin' me Justin couldn't grab himself a whole lotta teen pussy with impunity? In the way that a pimple faced computer gamer the same age as Justin couldn't do?
"Trump never condoned sexual assaults."
He went even further than that; he claimed to have committed them. He bragged about it.
The wonder that is Trump is how he can get the prudish Petes to deny that Trump did the things Trump admitted to doing, and get you to assert that it's okay because he got away with it, and maybe even okay because the women might have liked it it had been done by someone young and pretty, even though he's old and fairly not-pretty.
This is the thing I mentioned before that is so amazing about Trump's Trumpkins. Since Trump has taken positions on both sides of so many issues he's been able to get people who are ‘pro’ on an issue to believe he's with them because he said so in Omaha, Nebraska and he's able to get people who are ‘con’ on the same issue to believe he's with them because he said so an hour later in Lincoln Nebraska. They don't agree with each other but each thinks Trump only means what he says when he agrees with them, but not when he agrees with tha other fellah.
Ya'll simply believe the part you want to believe, and he takes all parts at one time or another, giving all of ya a chance to deceive yourselves in his service.
The percentage of Trumpkins who selectively believe the parts they want to believe while not believing him when he says things they don't want to hear is simply staggering. You and Petes are excellent examples.
This will, however, not last in real world application. Taking one side will too often preclude being able to take the other side. It's just not going to work for him to be on both sides as often as he was on the campaign trail, which was most of the time, on most issues.
Petes says it never happened. You say it's okay ‘cause women are sluts. These are not compatible positions, but both of you believe…. This is the con man at work.
By the way, Trump has apparently decided to make some sort of Presidential declaration regarding funding for his Great Wall. Supposed to come today. (Looks like getting funding out of the Congress isn't going so well for him--and, as for the Mexicans…, yeah, right…) So, he's apparently gonna issue executive orders to the effect that the money shall magically appear, and soon, or some such thing as that.
I can't understand why you're so pissy when you're about to get a beautiful wall, Lee. Maybe because you're one of the ones no woman would allow to grab her and you're envious at trump for being allowed by women to do so?
"I can't understand why you're so pissy when you're about to get a beautiful wall…"
The wall's a waste of money. Net immigration from Mexico is negative (more going home to Mexico than are coming across) And, ladders are cheap; the wall wouldn't stop Mexican immigrants if they were intent on coming across. The solution to the Mexican immigrant problem is to jail some white folks for hiring illegals. White folks don't like being in jail. They'd quit hiring illegals right quick soon as word got around. Only have to jail a few of them. They quit hiring, the Mexicans quit coming. Much cheaper, much more effective. The wall is a gimmick and a waste of money, not a solution.
And, besides, there's not gonna be a wall. Trump's gonna order federal agencies to hand over their available petty cash to build a wall. They're not gonna do it. But, Trump's not gonna tell anybody about that part. Then Trump's gonna take credit for some additional fencing that's already been authorized. Then he's gonna declare the non-problem of Mexican immigration magically ‘solved’. He'll get away with this because Mexican immigration is not a problem. The Mexicans are going home to Mexico; that's where the jobs are going. (The 700 Carrier air-conditioner jobs staying in Indiana notwithstanding--1000 Carrier jobs are still going to Mexico; the Mexicans are going back to Mexico to get those jobs.)
Since it's not really a problem Trump doesn't need a wall to solve it. He just needs declare it magically solved. No wall, and the additional fencing we're gonna get's already been authorized under Obama.
I'm given to understand that Trump is going to say ‛Radical Islam’ at least once today thereby terrifying al-Qaeda and Da’esh into submission, eventually.
…maybe…
Why did Obama authorize fencing? Doesn't he know about those ladders?
Btw - your idea about jail for those hiring illegals isn't half bad. Although has any politician seriously run on that?
Also that must mean you're in favour of closing down Sanctuary Cities, right?
[Chumpy]: "The percentage of Trumpkins who selectively believe the parts they want to believe while not believing him when he says things they don't want to hear is simply staggering. You and Petes are excellent examples."
Yore mistaking me for some kind of Trump acolyte. I think Trump's an idiot. But I do think the establishment needed a short sharp kick in the wherever, and Trump has woken people up to that fact. I don't claim he's gonna be the one to solve any problems. I do claim that anyone stupid enough to think that Trump is gonna legalise sexual assault is more of an idiot than he is. Or, more likely, they have their own agenda and are lookin' to take offence.
[Chumpy]: "The solution to the Mexican immigrant problem is to jail some white folks for hiring illegals."
So now you only disagree with Trump on methodology, not policy.
[Chumpy]: "He'll get away with this because Mexican immigration is not a problem. The Mexicans are going home to Mexico; that's where the jobs are going."
So now it's not a problem again? Y'all seem to be flip-floppin' on this, and you ain't even flitted from Omaha to Lincoln to do it.
"Why did Obama authorize fencing?"
Unlike the Republican base, compromise isn't considered a dirty word among all Democrats. Sometimes theres stuff ya might not want mixed into legislation along with stuff ya do want.
I don't think it's wise to "close down" cities. They're full of people I don't want to come out here. I'm not sure how one would go about that anyway, but I'm reasonably certain ‘closing down’ a city would result in people leaving there, and some of them coming here.
"I think Trump's an idiot."
You're certainly not the only Trumpkin who feels that way. (Or, at least claims to when pressed.)
(The rest of your post is a bunch of unsupported non-sequiturs which I shall ignore for the time being.)
"…which I shall ignore for the time being."
On account of you're babbling nonsense there. (Just in case you were wondering why I's ignoring your nonsense.)
Apparently Trump's much ballyhooed executive order on The Great Wall of Trump provides for no more than that the federal government shall begin ‘planning’ to build a wall. (Although there already are plans for that.) No actual building. Not even an order to other departments to turn over their petty cash accounts (which they weren't gonna do anyway).
Great Sound and Fury, signifying nothing.
Well, now, we have an actual development here. Paul Ryan has unexpectedly folded (unexpected by me anyway). He's announced that he's onboard with financing The Great Wall of Trump. Apparently they're gonna repeal ObamaCare by the end of April and then, after Trump's onboard with repealing ObamaCare (which has been a kinda ‛iffy’ thing upt to this point), then they're gonna fund his Great Wall for him. This, of course, implies that Trump will keep his end of the bargain and let them repeal ObamaCare without a replacement program.
They might just pull this one off--my insistence that they'd not waste money on his wall notwithstanding.
Last I read they were talking about a supplemental appropriations bill to fund the Great Wall of Trump.
I think Trump's an idiot."
There's a lot of that going around.
[Chumpy]: "I don't think it's wise to "close down" cities. They're full of people I don't want to come out here."
Yer motives seem curiously selfish. Same as the time y'all wanted to let the Syrian Aye-rabs finish each other off instead of intervening. You sure yore a true Democrat supporter? Ain't you supposed to be wishin' bad things on yoreself, like DNC Chair Candidate Sally Boynton Brown who provides the best evidence that the Trumpkins kept the real racists out of government.
[Chumpy]: "Paul Ryan has unexpectedly folded (unexpected by me anyway)."
Don't worry -- nobody's expectin' y'all to learn from yer predictive failures.
First of all, Trump hasn't yet kept his end of the bargain; second, there's no guarantee that Ryan can deliver a supplemental appropriation if Trump does keep his end. So, don't go gettin’ ahead of yourself just ‘cause there's an outside chance they may come to terms on an agreement to bust the budget wide open after all. (Promising to do something later that never gets done is one of the hallmarks of recent Republican-dominated legislative sessions.)
I've been thinking about yer confident assertions that the Republican party is having its last gasp. Maybe you're right, maybe not. It seems to me the rise of Trump is a rejection of establishment politics across the board. But it does increasingly seem to me that it's the Democrats that are imploding. It is true, of course, that Hillary won the popular vote in the presidential election ... yet it must still be asked why so few people turned out to vote for her. Relative to Obama in '08, Hillary managed to lose the black vote, the white vote, and the male vote. I genuinely think that people have had enough of the Dem's bullshit identity politics or, at least, enough people to make a difference to the election outcome. That DNC Chair candidate's debate is also an eye-opener as to how far off the rails the Democrat train has gone. And Saturday's women's march was more of the same politicisation of gender, race and identity.
"Relative to Obama in '08…"
The Republicans have been Hating Hillary for 20+ years. They've been preparing to run against since 2000. It took it's toll. Took a toll on her; she retreated into defensive mode that didn't serve her well, and it took it's toll on the electorate. There are a bunch of people out there who only marginally pay attention to politics and they managed to get steeped in 20+ years of anti=Hillary propaganda. So, yeah, relative to Obama, she didn't perform as well.
Not much of a surprise there.
And, the Democrats are all freaked out on account of they managed to lose to Trump of all people. After a little while they'll settle down and realize they've got the future; all they have to do is pick it up after Trump turns in his disaster on behalf of what's left of the Republican Party.
But, it'll be a few more months before they unfreak and look at it clearly. Turnout was down. Dems lose when turnout's down. This is the well known pattern, nothing to freak over, even if it was Trump.
Hillary is an accomplished ‘inside’ politician. She gets along with her fellow politicians; she finds common ground; she gets stuff done; she does it all without much fanfare or drama. And, all indications are that she is a dedicated and honest public servant. She is, however, a fairly lousy political candidate; she's no good at campaigning. She doesn't like that part and she's never been particularly good at that part.
And she still beat him by 3 million votes; he walked all over the best the Republicans could bring to bear against him, but she beat him by 3 million votes. Turns out the last two Republicans to win the Presidency, Dubya and now Trump, both did so by taking fewer votes than the Democratic candidate did. They're now enjoying a structural advantage in the Presidential elections similar to what they've long enjoyed in the legislative elections. The Dems are gonna havta start allowing for that, but they can handle that one I think, now that they know they gotta. And it's become apparent they'd best start figuring on the "gotta".
Don't they have ladders in Gaza? I wonder why the Israelis are so stupid they built a wall. Now it IS true that bus-bombings and other bombings are dramatically down since they built that wall but a.f.a.i.k you can bring a bomb up a ladder so I don't think it's related. It must have been expensive too. What a waste. We all know walls don't work.
The Democrats are perfectly right to be freaked out about Trump. How could they screw up this badly? I mean, it's normal to have a biased media on their side ... we got used to that with Bush (in fact it goes back to at least Bush senior whose campaign I happen to recall as I was in the US for most of it). But the Democrats had the Republicans on their side, at least in the sense of most of the GOP hatin' on Trump during the primaries. Let's not forget Trump was the dream nominee for the Dems, as nobody gave him a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary.
And spare me the nonsense about Hillary being a lousy political candidate. If she was, neither she, the Dems, nor the media knew it as they were all expecting the election to be a formality. Nope, Hillary lost because the Democrats have been turning increasingly batshit crazy for years, and certain folks finally ran out of patience with them.
Let's face it, Hillary's demographic were at that women's march on Saturday. The more of it I have watched, the more my jaw is hangin' open at the pure batshit craziness of it. Here's Ashley Judd for example, with a spiel that I hope nobody's young daughters heard as it is the filthiest, vilest, extremist rant I've heard since the last feminist rant I watched on youtube.
Apart from the insinuations of incest against Trump, and the shock tactic idiocy about menstruation, her faux outrage about the lower paid female Hispanic workers is misplaced. Just 'cos it's not a feminist myth doesn't mean it's a conspiracy against women. Maybe it's competition with those illegals that Trump was talking about. Anyway, I certainly won't be paying $100+ for tickets to see Ms Judd on Broadway ever again. If she's happy to take on the "nasty woman" moniker, I'm perfectly happy to treat her and her ilk as the enemy.
"I mean, it's normal to have a biased media on their side ... "
What's normal is that the further into the wings of fanaticism a person is, the more certain that person is that ‘the media’ is biased. This applies whether the fanatic is tending towards either the left wing, or, more commonly, the right wing. I say it's more commonly the right wing because there are more crazies out on the right wing than on the left. ‘The media’ is biased against Republican orthodoxy; I will grant ya that, but that's because Republican orthodoxy is demonstrably false and ‘the media’ has an institutional bias against the dissemination of false information.
As far as the wingnuts go… They exist on the left as well as on the right. The difference is they only make noise from the left wing. There's not enough leftie crazies to make a difference, only enough to make noise. They've captured the Republican Party from the right wing; they don't just make noise; they make policy; they're arguably the largest single block in the Republican Party. (This is the result of adoption of a false orthodoxy; ya collect crazies that way; if ya can't collect enough, ya start creating yer own.)
You are radical enough to be outraged by the noise from the other extreme, but they're not a significant factor other than as noisemakers. You pay them much more attention than do the run-of-the-mill Democrats, ‛cause you're outraged that they even exist. They don't like you much either. But they're not a power in the Party.
"Don't they have ladders in Gaza? I wonder why the Israelis are
so stupid they built a wall."
The Israeli patrol their wall; they've got soldiers only a minute or so away from any point at any point in time. If we want to keep patrols out in the desert, we don't need the wall, the patrols will be enough. (The incoming Mexicans will not be able to disappear into the crowds; ‛cause the crowds are of jackrabbits and coyotes and mesquite bushes, and the Mexicans will stick out.) Without the patrols, walls in rural areas do no good. With patrols they are unnecessary.
Our biggest problem with our Border Patrol is that we've got over 20,000 Border Patrol agents, most of whom do not want to leave their air-conditioning ‛cause it's freekin’ hot out there in the desert, so they drive around in SUVs, or sit in office and carp ‛bout how the Democrats don't give them enough toys to play with.
Post Script:
The Romans patrolled Hadrian's Wall as well; had soldiers stationed out on the wall in fact; knowledge of the need for patrols is not new. The purpose of the wall is to slow the incoming down long enough for the patrols to catch up with them.
"Let's not forget Trump was the dream nominee for the Dems, as nobody gave
him a snowball's chance in hell of beating Hillary."
Let's not forget he lost to Hillary; he did not beat her; the Democrats were right; Hillary beat him. Most people voted for either Trump or Hillary (a smaller number voted for Stein or Johnson) Hillary got the most votes. Trump won at the electoral college and only there. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE ON THE BALLOTS THE VOTERS CHOSE FROM. The public did not vote for those people.
According to Politico.com the Democrats in Congress have settled on the same full-on obstructionist opposition strategy that the Republicans deployed against Obama back in 2008-09 when Obama first took office.
I don't know if they'll find it as effective for their side as it was for the Republicans. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
One interim prediction I will make… We won't find Trump wasting three years trying to make peace with obstructionist Democrats who will not be placated. This'll likely be open war from day one.
Well, we were gonna have open war from day one if Hillary had won, so…
And, come to think on it, Trump's personality being what it is, the chances he was gonna try to make peace with the Democrats was vanishingly small to begin with, so full-on obstructionist opposition is probably the logical first move.
So, what happens if the Mexicans decide to fight back? NationalReview
The Trump administration has decided to not participate in the ‛peace talks’ for Syria being held in Astana. We'll be having an observer there, but he's officially just an observer, not a participant. AlMonitor
[Chumpy]: "You are radical enough to be outraged by the noise from the other extreme, but they're not a significant factor other than as noisemakers. You pay them much more attention than do the run-of-the-mill Democrats, ‛cause you're outraged that they even exist. They don't like you much either. But they're not a power in the Party."
Firstly, I don't give a rats ass about that leftwing/rightwing stuff. I wouldn't agree with either of yore parties on any of those traditional scores. I'm talking about the "progressive" element of the Democrats -- the batshit crazy element. They are not only a power in the party, they are increasingly the only thing the party is about.
They're what draws your notice, but that don't give them power over anybody else, just you.
Well obviously people who are in thrall to the batshit craziness like yerself ain't gonna notice that yore in thrall. That's the power.
However, it seems that yore soul mate may be in the Oval Office after all. It seems Trump is as arithmetically challenged as y'all. In response to the Preznit of Mehico basically telling him to get stuffed about paying for his wall, the Donald has threatened to slap a 20% tariff on goods crossing the border from Mexico. With this piece of genius he doesn't seem to realise that it is the American taxpayer who will stump up the cost in higher prices.
Not even a good try. Swing and a miss, wild swing at that, not even a good try. You must feel desperate. (Yes, I know you'll want to deny feeling desperate. No need to further waste our time on this one since I already know.)
Congress is not overly thrilled with the idea of 20% tariffs on imports from Mexico.
I'm talking about the "progressive" element of the Democrats -- the batshit crazy element. They are not only a power in the party, they are increasingly the only thing the party is about.
Yup, well, I'm thinking that the batshit crazy element of the Republican party is now ruling the White House.
With this piece of genius he doesn't seem to realise that it is the American taxpayer who will stump up the cost in higher prices.
Eventually the American people will notice.
" I'm thinking that the batshit crazy element of the Republican party
is now ruling the White House."
It's an interesting mix. Shorthands also has his Billionaire's Circus in there with him, and this after the Democrats had increasingly have made inroads into the Goldman-Sachs/Masters of the Universe element of what used to be exclusively Republican territory (to the contrary of Petes and his assertion that the Hollyweird element was ascendant among the Democrats)
I'm gonna let the poor editing slide. I think the point comes across.
Kellyanne Conway has announced to the world that Mexico wants to send drugs over our joint border to bedevil us. And Shorthands has been on the Tweeter again this morning with the claim that Mexico has been ‛taking advantage’ of us for long enough. One must presume this is retribution for Mexican President Peña Nieto embarrassing Trump yesterday by taking him up on that offer to cancel their meeting. Caught Trump flatfooted; now he's pissed.
He appears to make poor decisions when he's pissed.
I am somewhat amazed at the number of Trumpkins who actually believe the following, or some near version to it.
"Why are the relations between Donald Trump and the press so bad?
*** [Largely because] Trump likes it this way, because when the press
is constantly attacking him over trivialities, it strengthens his position
and weakens the press. Trump’s “outrageous” statements and tweets
aren’t the product of impulsiveness, but part of a carefully maintained
strategy that the press is too impulsive to resist."
Glenn Reynolds ― USAToday
They seem to have forgotten that a constant drum-beat of negative stories eventually starts soaking in with the apolitical middle, the swing voter they need so very badly.
Gotta wonder how they could forget this; they used the tactic to such good effect against Hillary Clinton just this last cycle.
It is typical of authoritarian types to have to have an "enemy" to blame things on. It works as cover for all sorts of mischief. Saddam Hussein used to use Israel. The Middle East in general uses the United States, as does North Korea. Trump wants warmer relations with Russia so he can't use them, so he uses the press, or streams of illegal immigrants, dangerous or not, flowing across our borders.
Trump will not lack for enemies. The Trumpkins are eager for enemies too. They will accept almost any enemy he chooses for them. But, ‘the media’ is an obvious choice. The right-wingers have made them a chief enemy, near first on the list, since the Reagan years (and the fantasy economics that Reagan proposed), and Trump's got an aversion to the truth that fits right in with that pre-established animus.
I mentioned earlier that Trump had blown-up photos of his inaugural crowd prominently posted in the press areas of the White House… I've confirmed that those photos were taken from an angle that would conceal the gaps in the crowd and make it look like the mall was considerably more filled than was the case. Just to keep ‘em pissed off so they'll hopefully react when he pokes ‘em. He pokes ‘em and gets yawns it'll not feed his Trumpkins nearly so well.
Polls are showing the Trump still has the support of 80% of his Trumpkins, the people who voted for him, often whilst saying they thought he was not competent to handle the office (Petes makes for a classic Trumpkin--the only thing is, he wasn't allowed to actually vote his preferences there, but, other than that he's classic Trumpkin).
How this works out is that Trump has about a 36% approval rate for his first week in office. That too is an historic low--Obama was running at 59% at the end of his first week (or higher, depending on which poll one selected), and even Bush, who was also a minority President (and even after that bitterly fought post-election legal selection of Bush by the Supreme Court), even Bush was doing much better than is Trump on the approval scale. I think Bush was in the middle to upper 40% range.
So, for all it looks like Trump's on top of the world right now--he's actually on thin ice already. He may yet recover, but I don't think this is an auspicious beginning for him.
[Lynnette]: "It is typical of authoritarian types to have to have an "enemy" to blame things on."
That's what's so telling about the women's marchers and the Dem-regrets. Their Trump bogeyman is such a hilarious caricature, one can only laugh. He's the wolf that's threatening to blow their house down, the ogre at the top of their beanstalk. He's their male Baba Yaga (Russian allusion intended). He's the enemy that threatens their monocultural hegemony.
(That's why Chumpy here can't bear to use his actual name).
[Chumpy]: "Polls are showing the Trump still has the support of 80% of his Trumpkins, the people who voted for him, often whilst saying they thought he was not competent to handle the office (Petes makes for a classic Trumpkin--the only thing is, he wasn't allowed to actually vote his preferences there, but, other than that he's classic Trumpkin)."
So what yer sayin' is Trump's supporters are discerning voters who don't abandon their own values to blindly follow any political pied piper, including Trump. Unlike yer sycophantic support for Hillary, their candidate is provisionally accepted under sufferance, and is only as good as his performance. Sounds right and proper to me.
"So what yer sayin' is Trump's supporters are discerning voters…"
Must not have been me ‘said’ that; must have been you.
"Chumpy here can't bear to use his actual name…"
[Chumpy]: "Must not have been me ‘said’ that; must have been you."
It's what you were sayin' by implication. I would've filled that bit in for ya, except I temporarily forgot what a dullard y'all are when it suits ya to be. (Yes, you'd think I'd know by now, but I am ever the optimist).
Your powers of inference are apparently shot. (As are your powers of observation. You're probably the only one didn't get it.)
A new Quinnipiac Poll shows that 70% of Americans agree with the ruling in Roe v. Wade, which is, I believe, an almost record high level of support for the 1973 ruling allowing abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy.
Shorthands, of course, has adopted Republican orthodoxy in opposition to Roe since his switch to the Republican Party, and is expected to nominate, this coming week, a justice known to be hostile to a woman's right to choose.
Again, what if Mexico fights back? NYT
"He's their male Baba Yaga (Russian allusion intended)."
Our intelligence agencies are unanimous in the conclusion that Putin ordered Russian intelligence operations to assist Trump in winning the Presidency; even the FBI belatedly came to that conclusion, and Petes is publicly indulging himself in his faerie tales to the contrary.
And yet Petes expects to be taken seriously. How is an open question, but he obviously expects it.
Their Trump bogeyman is such a hilarious caricature, one can only laugh.
Unfortunately he is more than a bogeyman for some. He is the man who ruins lives.
Trump's weekend of self-indulgence in executive orders has run into a fairly major glitch we'll probably find much discussed on the Sunday morning talking heads shows come sunup. The order on the immediate cancellation of visas from Muslim majority areas in turmoil is widely rumored to have been the work of the Trump Whisperer, Steve Bannon, he of recent Breitbart vintage.
And, it's lookin’ like a real disaster for Trump. (This will not be beneficial for Paul Ryan, who's gone through some serious contortions trying to reconcile his previous positions with his recent as today's praise for Trump's foray into the field of executive orders. Probably won't help Trump's standing either.)
Post a Comment