After the 2016 election I was worried.
Oh, certainly about the election of Donald Trump, yes. But it was
more than that. I was worried that there was no one out there that
could see through the sham of his rhetoric, that no one wanted to.
I was worried that young voters had turned off to being a catalyst
for change in our country, that they just didn't care. Apathy is
what concerned me. Because it is apathy that allows dictators to
grow, it is what allows countries to fail.
Yesterday was a day of marches across
America. What was important wasn't just the marches themselves,
because we have seen numerous marches since Trump took office. No,
it was who organized, spoke and who came out. These were young
people, some who cannot vote yet and others who will be voting for
the first time come this fall. They were carrying on a tradition
that hits to the very soul of what makes America, America. It is the
idea that we can effect change, that we are the masters of our own
destiny, not some lone person sitting in a gilded cage pulling strings
to remain in power. Someone once said that in America we have a
revolution every four years. Well, maybe yes, maybe no. Sometimes
we tend to slide along without really watching too closely what is
happening and we end up with something that is not so pleasant.
The marches yesterday were about saving
lives, the lives of our children, the lives of innocent people at
concerts, movie theaters, or anywhere else someone picks up an
assault weapon and starts shooting. This is a problem that both
political parties should be concerned about, and should have taken
action on long ago, because it affects everyone.
Here is a clip of Emma Gonzalez
speaking yesterday. She was one of the survivors of the Parkland, Fl
shooting. Someone once asked her why she thought so many people
listened to her. She smiled and said she thought it was because of
her hair. There aren't too many bald girls out there, so she stood
out. I can say with quite a bit of certainty that that isn't
the reason.
This is a righteous cause. This is the
America I know and love. I stand with Ms. Gonzalez and her friends.
It's old, I know, but sometimes those
oldies just seem analogous. :)
42 comments:
Lynnette".I was worried that young voters had turned off to being a catalyst for change in our country, that they just didn't care. Apathy is what concerned me. Because it is apathy that allows dictators to grow, it is what allows countries to fail."
It ceartainly wasn't "apathy" that got Trump elected. It was pure ENERGY, just on the opposite side of the one you preferred. Ya'll ran with Hillary and she was just more apt to inspire that apathy, even with the entire system behind her.
As for the anti Gun-rallies, Trump came out and did precisely what I said would happen: bar bump stocks. That's probably an end to that and the rest of it will fizzle out in the coming months. Ya'll aint gonna give up your guns anytime soon.
It ceartainly wasn't "apathy" that got Trump elected.
I would disagree with you to some extent. I believe there were a lot of voters turned off at the choice they had, yes. Too many stayed home, for whatever reason. But even with that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
As for the anti Gun-rallies, Trump came out and did precisely what I said would happen: bar bump stocks. That's probably an end to that and the rest of it will fizzle out in the coming months.
Never say never, Marcus. This is the first time I have seen so many young people "energized" as you say, by anything, except maybe a smart phone. They are in survival mode.
Trump lost among voters younger than 65. He won big among older voters.
He lost among voters 30 and under by a two to one margin.
Trumpkins are (among Americans anyway) a dying demographic, not a rising one.
His election was a fluke, one that is not likely to be repeated.
By the way, it turns out that FoxNews talking head Joseph diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, will not be joining Trump's legal team after all.
Petes might take note of Trump's difficulty in attracting top of the line legal talent to his defense. I'm guessing that's a sign that Bannon and Petes are both wrong and the Mueller investigation is not going poorly ‛for the lefties’.
Post Script:
That post ↑↑ should not be taken as marking Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing as top of the line legal talent. They're second stringers at best. But, their disqualification from representing Trump did remind me that Trump has a problem on that front.
LOL. Cambridge Analytica turning out to be a cooked up media storm, so the lefties are reverting to plan A ... blame the Russkis.
[Lynnette]: " This is the first time I have seen so many young people "energized" as you say, by anything, except maybe a smart phone."
That's because of your selective media reporting. The annual March for Life in DC has attracted numbers in the hundreds of thousands, half of them under 30. The media usually reports it as "tens of thousands". Doesn't sit well with the dominant narrative though. Prolly too many Trump supporters among 'em (though that doesn't explain previous years).
Mentioning Bannon along with Trump's legal problems and Petes immediately makes the jump to Cambridge Analytica. Well, there is a connection, Bannon being the link, but I suspect Petes would not have chosen to highlight that if he'd thought about it just a little longer.
They're doing the Stormy Daniels interview tonight on 60 Minutes. I know, I know, but I think I'll watch anyway.
James Comey will be interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on April 15.
The annual March for Life in DC has attracted numbers in the hundreds of thousands, half of them under 30.
The gun control march didn't just happen in DC, it was across the country. I will bet that there were quite a few people who marched in both.
I looked in on the 60 Minutes piece. It didn't exactly hold my interest. Looked like her pupils were blown, and that's with the TV lighting in her face. That would seem to me to indicate she was on something.
Or, I suppose it might be contact lenses, although I don't recall ever hearing that contacts could cause such a response.
TrumpTweets: Trump is oddly subdued this morning.
Looked like her pupils were blown, and that's with the TV lighting in her face. That would seem to me to indicate she was on something.
I didn't notice. Her manner seemed lucid.
She did seem lucid. I'm guessing a boost of coke, just to improve her focus for the interview.
The Trump administration released their notes on the negotiations with South Korea to exempt South Korea from the new steel and aluminum imports.
The lead item was their announcement of victory over the South Korean import restrictions of 50,000 "American standard" automobiles per American car company. (E.g. Ford can export 50,000 Ford automobiles per year that meet American pollution and mileage standards before they have to start sending only autos that meet the more stringent South Korean standards.) The South Koreans have agreed to double that upper limit from 50,000 vehicles per year to 100,000 vehicles per year.
The only problem with this great victory is that none of the American car companies come anywhere near selling 50,000 "American standard" vehicles per year in South Korea. (The South Koreans don't particularly want gas guzzling American-style SUVs.) So, raising the limit that we never approach anyway isn't exactly a great victory for our side.
But, that is the Trump administration's lead-off claim of victory in the applying Trump's great dealmaking skills.
It goes downhill rapidly from there.
Lee: "I looked in on the 60 Minutes piece. It didn't exactly hold my interest. Looked like her pupils were blown, and that's with the TV lighting in her face. That would seem to me to indicate she was on something."
I guess that means you won't be taking the word of any drugged up old pornstar wreck against that of your elected President? Good on you.
I've since seen parts on Youtube and she was coked up for sure. COULD still be Trump got it on with her, I wouldn't put it past him tbh, but her testimony smells like attention equals (promised) money equals coke! That skank'll say anything, for the right price, or even for the next dime bag.
The truth? Impossible to get at, unless there are more evidence.
Lee:
"She did seem lucid. I'm guessing a boost of coke, just to improve her focus for the interview."
Also, ask yourself why "they" would in that case let a coked up skank onto the show to begin with?
Like:
"OMG she's sweathing and can't barely speak right!"
"We go live in five, straighten her up!!!"
"We tried boss but she's tweaking real bad!"
"Fuck! OK give her some of this here powder to snort and shut the fuck up about me saying this, it never happened!"
"OK, boss"
And now we're live at CNN...... "Trump hooked up with this whore..."
"I guess that means you won't be taking the word of any
drugged up old pornstar wreck…"
Well, as Lynnette noted, she seemed quite lucid, so I'd reckon she wasn't exactly ‛drugged up’. I think she probably just took a boost to perk herself up for the interview--coulda been one of those quite legal, high caffeine drinks for that matter.
But, being a porno actress does indicate a tendency to compromise principles for money. That would ordinarily be a consideration when questions of her veracity come up, if they come up. But, that's ordinarily. The other party is Donald Trump; he's an apparently compulsive and quite probably pathological liar himself.
However, the important point is that most Americans, even most Trump supporters, believe the porn actress over the President--even the Trump supporters believe the porn actress by a wide margin, and generally admit it. They just don't care.
But, that is the Trump administration's lead-off claim of victory in the applying Trump's great dealmaking skills.
Yes, well, I have always been a little wary of his inflated claims.
I guess that means you won't be taking the word of any drugged up old pornstar wreck against that of your elected President? Good on you.
There are also others out there, such as Karen McDougal. Yes, I know, Playboy Bunny. But, given Trump's track record for cheating on wives I would tend to lean towards listening to others out there, despite their less than stellar reputations. I suspect that Melania is. I will be curious to see how long his current marriage lasts after he leaves office.
Santorum seems to be walking back his "kids should learn CPR" comment. I sometimes wonder if they are all idiots?
There was an ad in my newspaper the other day taken out by a group supporting gun control asking MN elected officials how they would answer two questions pertaining to gun control legislation. They have given them a week to respond, a non answer will be a "no" vote. They will then post the responses in a new ad. It should be interesting.
I think all that Santorum was ‛walking back’ was the idea that CPR is generally called for when dealing with a gunshot wound. CPR would tend to increase the bleeding, which is a bad thing.
They'd generally be called on to staunch the blood loss, not encourage it.
Trump's lawyers have started floating trial balloons about Trump pardoning Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort.
Petes' recent babbling about the supposed weaknesses in Mueller's investigations don't seem to have encouraged them even a little bit.
And, Mueller's team has filed new papers in one of their cases (against a Ukrainian name of Alexander van der Zwaan) in one of the peripheral cases Mueller's using to squeeze the main targets of interest. The idea appears to be to support a lenient sentence for Alexander van der Zwaan (now coöperating).
The new pleadings indicate that Paul Manafort was in regular contact with known Russian intelligence agents right up until he was bounced out of the Trump campaign in August of 2016 (for drawing unflattering publicity over his taking under-the-table cash payments from Russia-friendly Ukranians).
It may be that it was anticipation of this filing that lead to today's news about Trump pondering the pardons of Manafort and Flynn, or, at least, this may have influenced the timing of those stories.
NBC Nightly News just reported a story from London (Richard Engel reporting) that there's a hit list circulating among Russian spooks with eight names on it, including Sergie Skripal, recently poisoned in London, and that Christopher Steele (of the so-called ‛Steele dossier’) is also on that list.
...Christopher Steele (of the so-called ‛Steele dossier’) is also on that list.
Really? Yet people out there have been saying all of that was a hoax. Odd.
That's two names, I wonder who the others are?
They gave a third name, another ex-Russian spy who's taken refuge in Britain. I didn't bother to get his name. That leaves another five they didn't bother to identify (assuming their source--the third name--knew who all of them were).
By the way, Richard Engel did make the point that he could get a second source confirmation on those claims by the still not yet poisoned ex-Russian spy.
They like to have at least two sources, but it seems he was afraid he'd get scooped by the internet if he waited, so he just put it in the news report itself that he had only the one source.
The EPA is set to role back Obama era regulations for fuel economy on new cars.
I actually got to talk to a live person the other day who called to plug the Republican agenda for one of our Representatives. After I had determined that he really was a live person and not a recording I told him that I didn't like what the Trump administration is doing to the country or the Republicans that were helping him. I then told him that pretty much said it all and hung up. I doubt it will make a difference, but I did feel better.
"…he could not get a second source confirmation…"
That leaves another five they didn't bother to identify (assuming their source--the third name--knew who all of them were).
If they actually did know, perhaps a warning might be in order. Although perhaps it wouldn't have done any good for the two people poisoned in England. It was a subtle thing, hard to detect.
"…he could not get a second source confirmation…"
Ahh, then this isn't a sure thing. I know some people who would cry "fake news".
"…then this isn't a sure thing."
A second source doesn't make it a sure thing either. Richard Engel is a credible reporter in my estimation and experience. And he thinks it's real or he'd not have gone on-air with it.
Oh, and gotta tell the other five is probably how Engel was gonna lose his exclusive to the internet. Word would get out.
So, is Pruitt the next to get the ax? I wouldn't miss seeing him go at all.
I think I've read some of Richard Engel's stuff on Iraq. The name is familiar from his work there.
I don't really question the veracity of his story. It is just nice to have corroboration of a single source.
With Trump it's hard to say what Pruitt's prospects might be. Trump is erratic.
It seems that we have some information that al-Baghdadi was injured in an airstrike back around May of 2017, although we are not sure whose air strike it was. The Russians were claiming they got him in June of that year. He is still alive, but there have been too many distractions to concentrate on finding and taking him out now. Joel Wing has been reporting on an uptick in Daesh activity in Iraq. There is some reporting that the chaos in the White House is causing us to take our eyes off of that ball.
Trump will have a lot to answer for if he screws up everything that we have worked for, not just domestically, but internationally.
As Turkey intensifies its advance, some Kurdish fighters have begun abandoning their positions set up to confront ISIS so they can fight Turkey.
If ISIS regains ground, “the world will will pay a price,” Braga warned. “So I don't think we can go backwards. I don't even want to contemplate that future. That's not a world I want to live in.”
"Trump will have a lot to answer for if…"
Trump won't have to answer for anything so long as he's got a Republican Congress. They're afraid to cross him.
See, here's the thing, you can't really say what will happen in the future. Just look at the Arab Spring. I mean, who would have believed that would have happened the way it did? No, it hasn't turned out as well as one could have hoped, but it was even worse for some, such as Muammar Gaddafi. So, yes, the Republicans in Congress are protecting Trump. But someday they may not be there. Who can really know?
I thought we would miss our traditional basketball tournament snowstorms. But, no, I was disappointed to see a lot of white fluffy stuff, or not so fluffy stuff, covering my yard and driveway this morning. *sigh* Yes, I had to actually drag out the snowblower again.
Now it is sunny, and it being the end of March the sun is strong, so we are getting melting. I suspect it won't all go away soon, though.
Post a Comment