The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: sneakypete on December 18, 2016, 07:00:07 pm
-
No one can deny there is a symbiotic relationship between the press and the creatures we call "professional politicians. They both prosper and get fat from feeding from the same "feed troughs",and the career advancements of both are based on the "You scratch my back,and I'll scratch yours" method.
Any outside influence that becomes a factor that threatens the survival or the advancement of either side,threatens the survival and advancement of the other side of that couple.
EVERYONE understands that you don't start at the top of either power structure. You start at the bottom,kiss a LOT of ass,take a LOT of crap from people you don't like,many of whom you may never even see again,and "make your bones" by blindly and wholeheartedly supporting those 1 or more steps higher on the political or media food chain than you are. As they lose their positions by being fired,not being elected,retiring,or dying,everyone on that particular food chain get to make a lateral move to a slightly more important slot on the food chain,or move up a spot on the food chain.
That is the process everyone understands and agrees to in order to prove they are the team players they need to be in order to become media commissars or political royalty.
The "System" IS their religion,and they are all true believers who hope to one day become priests,or even Popes if they play their cards right.
Then Trump comes along,and blows their religion right out of the water. He's NOT a team player,he has NOT advanced his way up through their "farm system" one step at a time,and he owes nobody any favors. Worse of all from THEIR POV,he orbited close enough to the world of the elites in the political and media world that he has as much dirt on them as they do on him,so he is virtually bulletproof. By virtue of winning the Presidency as his first public office,he has made a mockery of them and everything they have accomplished in their lives that makes them feel like they are somebody important and "special".
Probably what hurts them the most is the CERTAIN knowledge that if they had taken him seriously from the start they could have probably torpedoed his victory in the primaries. Instead they just arrogantly assumed that their Queen was going to be crowned,and did nothing to bring him down. They most likely even worked in the background without his knowledge to help him win the primary.
Now they are left with trying to come up with excuses to justify their loss,and to lessen the damages they have done to their own self-images. All they have came up with so far is "It was the Russians,I tell you,the Russians! They hacked the Queens emails that she sent out unsecured,I tell ya! EEEK! EEEEK! EEEEK!"
Is there ANYBODY reading this that doesn't understand that EVERY major nation out there does their damnedest to "read the mail" of competitor nations in order to gain some sort of advantage for themselves,and that this includes US?
It's been that way from the time when there were no nations,only wandering tribes. Each tribe spied on the other tribe to try to gain an advantage. The only thing new is computers make is SOOO much easier to "read the mail" of your enemies. This is especially true when it is the mail of an arrogant "entitled" bitch that thinks it's "her turn to be President" and that email security and all other forms of security are the worry of the "little people".
If Trump can come in from out of the blue and take over the most important job/position in the country,how safe are THEIR jobs?
Selfish Self-Interest. That IS what it is all about.
-
Bingo! You make a number of really good points, some of which pertain to all governments everywhere throughout the history of mankind. The weak link is the frailty of human beings - we have unseemly traits that cover everything from greed, to revenge to job self-preservation.
Entire books have been written about the unseemly yet symbiotic relationship between the press and political players.
Thousands of pages could be written about Crony Capitalism, and those just off the top of my head.
Extortion is a subject much less addressed, but it is alive and well in Washington. Tony Soprano never had it so good. A quick quote from Peter Schweizer's book, THROW THEM ALL OUT, sums it up well.
Even beyond the more obvious conflicts-of-interest which are involved, Washington politicians are becoming highly adept at extortion. They threaten businesses, individuals and entire industries with harmful legislation which then gets withdrawn when campaign contributions are forthcoming. These are termed “juicer bills” or “milker bills”, so-named after their ability to “milk” campaign contributions and personal investment favors from businesses and industries. These are powerful weapons which politicians have no trouble using.
-
Posted to Above the Fold.
Nice little analysis - and yep, you nailed Trump's effect on the chairwarmers.
-
Nice work, Sneakypete! And thanks to the Management for putting this Above the Fold!
It's a good theory about why the presstitutes are all anti-Trump. It's not just because he threatens their pals, he threatens them as well.
-
Multiple articles on this subject.
How Have American Media Changed from Walter Cronkite's Era? Significance, Context Often Are Lacking, MU Media Expert Says
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi4t-ahpJfRAhXorFQKHS3bDx4QFghUMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmunews.missouri.edu%2Fexpert-comment%2F2009%2F0721-winfield-cronkite.php&usg=AFQjCNGDJLXyYjaz59jdvLKHpCNFQMm_ew&sig2=QwL_I7Jt3Csm7jbstq2_vQ
Back when I was a kid my parents alays watched the evening news and "trusted" what was being reported.
Related.
5 Ways The Media Can Regain The Public Trust - The Federalist
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwin1tuRpZfRAhXCwlQKHfgZD54QFghDMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2016%2F12%2F15%2F5-ways-the-media-can-regain-the-public-trust%2F&usg=AFQjCNEyWBd8Xx5QuOZTn2d3C9DZMDDyPQ&sig2=paR3gsGv0PmL-_T8HTBAWg
-
Posted to Above the Fold.
Nice little analysis - and yep, you nailed Trump's effect on the chairwarmers.
@EC
Thanks.
The creatures we call "professional politicans" have a "Farm Team" system. Regardless of which branch of the ruling party you run under,if you are not born into a "noble family" like the Bushes,Kennedy's,Clinton's,etc,etc,etc,you are expected to start at the bottom and kiss the rings of those above you while doing the dirty grunt work,practically for free. As you advance up through the system,you have newbies under YOU,kissing YOUR ring. Amongst other things.
Think of professional politics as a Union,and professional politicians and their drones as shop stewards and craft employees,and suddenly it will all make sense.
Then comes this "Scab" (non-Union) candidate along,and he breaks the union monopoly. Suddenly the whole Farm Team system is destroyed. IF the "scab" is allowed to get away with it,and shop stewards and their bosses suddenly not only don't have any power,they also don't have any access to cash from above OR from below. After all,who is going to donate money to them if they are not in a position to do "favors" in return?
Even worse,there is a chance some of the system's slaves will wake up and see how they have been used and abused all these years,and there won't be a voter base for them to count on anymore. It will be "every man for himself",their worse nightmares come true. Hell,some of them may even have to get actual jobs where they do actual work,instead of having lunches ,deep sea fishing excursions,cocktail parties,weekends at the Hamptons,and golf games where they discuss "business" away from the recording devices and note takers?
No wonder the political movers and shakers and their wannabe serfs are in a full-tilt panic.
Don't get me wrong. I am NOT trying to claim this was why Trump decided to go for it once he won the primary. There was no nobility of cause moment. There was nothing but ego and wanting to be the ultimate "winner".
Still,if his presidency serves to topple the power of some of the families that have controlled American politics and budgets since the time of the Revolutionary War in some cases,he will have done a noble thing,even if by accident.
-
Thousands of pages could be written about Crony Capitalism, and those just off the top of my head.
@Hondo69
The ultimate irony is that Communism is the end result of out of control Crony Capitalism. You end up having a very few powerful families controlling a whole nation,and ultimately,the whole world.
And make no mistake about it,that is the ultimate goal no matter what adjective they attach to it.
-
Multiple articles on this subject.
How Have American Media Changed from Walter Cronkite's Era? Significance, Context Often Are Lacking, MU Media Expert Says
@bigheadfred
The title made me decide to not read it because it implies Cronkite was honest. He was one of the biggest liars in our nation's history,as well as one of the people who worked hard to destroy our Republic.
-
@bigheadfred
The title made me decide to not read it because it implies Cronkite was honest. He was one of the biggest liars in our nation's history,as well as one of the people who worked hard to destroy our Republic.
I agree, which is why I chose to read the other article Fred posted, from The Federalist. I recommend it.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/15/5-ways-the-media-can-regain-the-public-trust/
-
@bigheadfred
The title made me decide to not read it because it implies Cronkite was honest. He was one of the biggest liars in our nation's history,as well as one of the people who worked hard to destroy our Republic.
I wasn't trying to laud Cronkite. Just pointing out the difference between the way news was reported then and now. From the article:
"Television and media are so different than when Cronkite was on-air; in his era, people put aside time for the news...it was an event," said Winfield, University of Missouri Curators' Professor in Journalism. "Today, we have 24-hour, nonstop news with many different anchors and journalists. During Cronkite's era, there were only a few choices. When he spoke, people weren't bored, they were engaged."
"During Cronkite's time, news stations were owned by individuals who took pride in the news being reported. Now, there are corporations whose interests are faceless because they only care about beating the competition."
-
I agree, which is why I chose to read the other article Fred posted, from The Federalist. I recommend it.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/15/5-ways-the-media-can-regain-the-public-trust/
@Cyber Liberty
Thanks for the tip. I did read that one,and to be honest,it scared me a little. We,the American people,are just now starting to make a LITTLE headway in correcting the corruption and nepotism in the media and politics by forcing them into a corner where they expose themselves,and I personally don't want them learning any lessons from their most recent defeat.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Thanks for the tip. I did read that one,and to be honest,it scared me a little. We,the American people,are just now starting to make a LITTLE headway in correcting the corruption and nepotism in the media and politics by forcing them into a corner where they expose themselves,and I personally don't want them learning any lessons from their most recent defeat.
The nagging feeling I got while reading that story is they haven't learned it yet, so you're in good company, Pete.
-
Our citizenry has changed as well. What suffices today for analysis by talking heads would have been laughed out of the room a few decades ago.
I have seen with my own eyes a round table discussion on CNN an in-depth analysis of why Obama took control of GM. To a person they went around the table, all nodding and repeating the exact same phrase, "He had to do it", "He had to do it".
That's it. The sum total of the assembled brain trust was "He had to do it". No details, no explanation, not even a string of lies. Five simple words would do the trick.
A few decades ago 90% of Americans sitting at home would throw their shoes at the TV and vow to never watch CNN again for such a blatant insult to their intelligence. Today's citizenry has changed, no explanations required. It's beyond an outrage, it's beyond a disgrace, it is un-American.
-
Very incisive piece of work. Thanks for posting it.
I particularly agree strongly with and applaud you pointing out how the left did everything it could to help Trump defeat the other GOP primary candidates because the overwhelming numbers of 'Crats believed strongly ( in many cases passionately) that DJT was the weakest candidate of all to oppose Hill-O-Lies in the general.
I remember once saying to some arrogant 'Crat on a comments section who was gloating about Trump's assent in the primaries, warning him to, "be careful what you ask for, Bunky. Sometimes such things have a way of turning around, biting one on the *ss and injecting venom"!
I'd only add that there is also an element of envy in their resentment. Not only because he is what few if any of them will ever hope to be (billionaires) but he also mastered the use of words as munitions, which was heretofore a strictly inside-the-Beltway and leftist specialty. He's like a guy who never used a gun before who picked up a Colt and proceeded to win one fast-draw contest after another. There is likely a, "this cannot be happening," aspect to their frustrated rage.
And last but not least, the bureaucracy is no longer a meritocracy (if it ever was) and Trump is a return to or worse, a realignment with meritocratic hierarchy instead of nepotistic hierarchy for government service. That's got to stick in the bureaucracy's craw. How DARE someone come in a demand that everyone do their jobs efficiently, ethically and according to their job descriptions or be in danger of being forced out!
-
Well done pete. Thanks for composing and posting. I'm always grateful for original thought - particularly from other members.
-
Thanks for the treatise.
People need to understand - bureaucracies have certain universal traits... they exist for their own sakes, they are inclined on their own to grow and grow, they are cold blooded and brutal, etc.
The government is a bureaucracy that projects power from the barrel of a gun. And as you point out, politicians are its high priests.
At best its a necessary evil requiring voters to tightly control it. Because unchecked it will lead us into slavery.
What we don't know now is will Trump lead from the outside, or will he become co-opted by it.
-
I'd only add that there is also an element of envy in their resentment. Not only because he is what few if any of them will ever hope to be (billionaires) but he also mastered the use of words as munitions, which was heretofore a strictly inside-the-Beltway and leftist specialty. He's like a guy who never used a gun before who picked up a Colt and proceeded to win one fast-draw contest after another. There is likely a, "this cannot be happening," aspect to their frustrated rage.
And last but not least, the bureaucracy is no longer a meritocracy (if it ever was) and Trump is a return to or worse, a realignment with meritocratic hierarchy instead of nepotistic hierarchy for government service. That's got to stick in the bureaucracy's craw. How DARE someone come in a demand that everyone do their jobs efficiently, ethically and according to their job descriptions or be in danger of being forced out!
@LateForLunch
Since I tried to make those very points myself,I heartily agree with both!
-
Well done pete. Thanks for composing and posting. I'm always grateful for original thought - particularly from other members.
@Lando Lincoln
Thanks! It's always nice to get some positive feedback.
-
Thanks for the treatise.
People need to understand - bureaucracies have certain universal traits... they exist for their own sakes, they are inclined on their own to grow and grow, they are cold blooded and brutal, etc.
The government is a bureaucracy that projects power from the barrel of a gun. And as you point out, politicians are its high priests.
At best its a necessary evil requiring voters to tightly control it. Because unchecked it will lead us into slavery.
What we don't know now is will Trump lead from the outside, or will he become co-opted by it.
@skeeter
The point you made that I highlighted was one understood VERY well by the Founding Fathers. Those are the very reasons they thought it necessary to set us up as a Representative Republic,and not a democracy.
As I have written earlier,I was a VERY reluctant Trump voter. In fact,I only decided to vote for him the day before the election. After thinking about it long and hard I came up with two reasons that were to ME indisputable reasons why I HAD to vote for him.
1:To keep the Clinton's out of the White House.
2: The one thing most people hate about Trump. His MASSIVE ego. The Clinton's and the Bushes as well as the other criminals typical to this class of con artist seek power to enrich themselves. If push comes to shove,they flat don't give a damn if everybody on the planet hates them as long as they have money and the power it gives them.
Trump already has money. He has always had money. I am sure it has never even occurred to him that he would ever NOT have money.
He is also a narcissistic sociopath that has also always had that massive ego,and directly tied to his condition is his overwhelming desire to be a "winner". Trump is ALWAYS a "winner". It is other people who are "losers".
MY thinking is that once he gets into office and starts making decisions it will dawn on him that he isn't making decisions for Trump anymore. He's making decisions for the history books that will be written after he leaves office,and the one thing he fears more than death is going down in the history books as a loser. There will be no way he can lie his way out of decisions that are made public for everyone on the planet to see that bothers to look.
So,to sum up a long story in a short sentence,in MY opinion there is a very good CHANCE his mental condition will force him to put America first and be successful as a president,to the exclusion of all else. He loves himself so much he doesn't give a damn if anyone else loves him or not,and he doesn't need the money. What he DOES need like most of us need oxygen,is to have people recognize and applaud his successes.
Bubbette!,on the other hand,was solely focused on how much of America she could steal for personal profits,and how she could use the power of the feral government to punish any of the "little people" who got in her way.
Looking at it that way,the decision to vote for Trump ended up being the easiest decision I have ever made,even though I still don't like him. It ain't about what *I* like or dislike. It's about what is good for America.
-
@skeeter
The point you made that I highlighted was one understood VERY well by the Founding Fathers. Those are the very reasons they thought it necessary to set us up as a Representative Republic,and not a democracy.
As I have written earlier,I was a VERY reluctant Trump voter. In fact,I only decided to vote for him the day before the election. After thinking about it long and hard I came up with two reasons that were to ME indisputable reasons why I HAD to vote for him.
1:To keep the Clinton's out of the White House.
2: The one thing most people hate about Trump. His MASSIVE ego. The Clinton's and the Bushes as well as the other criminals typical to this class of con artist seek power to enrich themselves. If push comes to shove,they flat don't give a damn if everybody on the planet hates them as long as they have money and the power it gives them.
Trump already has money. He has always had money. I am sure it has never even occurred to him that he would ever NOT have money.
He is also a narcissistic sociopath that has also always had that massive ego,and directly tied to his condition is his overwhelming desire to be a "winner". Trump is ALWAYS a "winner". It is other people who are "losers".
MY thinking is that once he gets into office and starts making decisions it will dawn on him that he isn't making decisions for Trump anymore. He's making decisions for the history books that will be written after he leaves office,and the one thing he fears more than death is going down in the history books as a loser. There will be no way he can lie his way out of decisions that are made public for everyone on the planet to see that bothers to look.
So,to sum up a long story in a short sentence,in MY opinion there is a very good CHANCE his mental condition will force him to put America first and be successful as a president,to the exclusion of all else. He loves himself so much he doesn't give a damn if anyone else loves him or not,and he doesn't need the money. What he DOES need like most of us need oxygen,is to have people recognize and applaud his successes.
Bubbette!,on the other hand,was solely focused on how much of America she could steal for personal profits,and how she could use the power of the feral government to punish any of the "little people" who got in her way.
Looking at it that way,the decision to vote for Trump ended up being the easiest decision I have ever made,even though I still don't like him. It ain't about what *I* like or dislike. It's about what is good for America.
I had a discussion with a friend today about this very thing. Trump - warts, mental baggage and all - was the only person running who owes absolutely nothing to the system over which he will preside. Will he lead with an eye on his place in history or will he play to the system that will be constantly ingratiating themselves to him & appealing to his yuge ego throughout the next four years?
Far better men than he have surrender to the bureaucracy. We shall see.
-
Far better men than he have surrender to the bureaucracy. We shall see.
@skeeter
That's the point. His weakness MAY force him to be the best president he can be,regardless of any and all of the baubles waved in his face.
Can you think of ANYTHING scarier to a narcissistic sociopath than the sure knowledge that every school child in the future,including his own descendants,will lean in school that he was an incompetent president and a loser?
This ain't a few editorials in newspapers that will go on files and never seen again 6 months after he leaves office. This is "history books for perpetuity" stuff. I honestly can't think of anything that could scare him more.
-
@skeeter
Yet, in a way, Trump owes EVERYTHING he has to that system. Without the crony capitalism, tax loop holes, bad trade deals, self-dealing, etc., he would be another nowhere man.
-
@skeeter
Yet, in a way, Trump owes EVERYTHING he has to that system. Without the crony capitalism, tax loop holes, bad trade deals, self-dealing, etc., he would be another nowhere man.
With all due respect (and that is great) since these factors mentioned above were all present at the various times that some of DJT's enterprises went belly up over the years, would it also be fair to maintain that those failures were attributable to the presence of these same external factors? If they were more influential than his own efforts/resources in creating his successes would they not also dominate the dynamics of his failures?
Plenty of people have the advantages / opportunities that DJT had but did not establish a string of successes which earned them billions.
Your appraisal comes perilously close to the notion that all great success by corporations or multinational companies derives from little more than luck (nods to Kurt Vonnegut) the ability / willingness to shrewdly manipulate a hopelessly corrupt system using predominately immoral means (Karl Marx).
Although that may be true of some billionaires (more than a few far leftists I could name who seem rather dull-witted at their core, may owe more to luck than skill), there are other successful billion-dollar companies for which success seems to emanate from their CEO's/owner's capabilities to invest private resources effectively in a capitalist free market economy.
Steve Wynn is one that comes to mind and his success is very similar to Trump's.
The application of Ockham's Razor (the proposition that the conclusion requiring the least number of assumptions is likely to be correct) seems to leave at least a skeletal form for DJT which derives its substance from merit of some variety and not primarily external elements for which he can claim no responsibility nor receive credit.
All that being said, it is certainly possible that DJT owes his own success more to dumb luck and an ability to understand the dynamics of corruption. I just wonder if it is possible using the knowledge that is available to make that positive statement with any authority.
-
Probably what hurts them the most is the CERTAIN knowledge that if they had taken him seriously from the start they could have probably torpedoed his victory in the primaries. Instead they just arrogantly assumed that their Queen was going to be crowned,and did nothing to bring him down. They most likely even worked in the background without his knowledge to help him win the primary.
I'm reminded of an observation a conservative author once made regarding Sen. Joseph McCarthy: if we must suffer
his like, it's usually because more responsible men and women fail to see the very real issue(s) that animate his like.
The same can be said fairly about Donaldus Minimus: the Republican Party turned a deaf or at least selective ear
for too long to very real issues that animated and aggravated the country. Add to that a group of contenders in the
primaries who seemed just as tone deaf, and none of their missives against Donaldus Minimus's real flaws stuck.
I was grateful to have "None of These Candidates" as an option in my state. We couldn't have had a worse choice of
major party candidates if they'd yielded up a competition between Caligula and Queen Athaliah.
-
I'm reminded of an observation a conservative author once made regarding Sen. Joseph McCarthy: if we must suffer
his like, it's usually because more responsible men and women fail to see the very real issue(s) that animate his like.
The same can be said fairly about Donaldus Minimus: the Republican Party turned a deaf or at least selective ear
for too long to very real issues that animated and aggravated the country. Add to that a group of contenders in the
primaries who seemed just as tone deaf, and none of their missives against Donaldus Minimus's real flaws stuck.
I was grateful to have "None of These Candidates" as an option in my state. We couldn't have had a worse choice of
major party candidates if they'd yielded up a competition between Caligula and Queen Athaliah.
@EasyAce
No kidding. Why is it such a surprise to so many people that Trump won,when we could have picked a name at random out of a phone book that was not connected to the DNC or RNC,and that candidate would have won? Maybe even with a bigger slice of the votes?
It's PAST time for the political professionals to quit bitching about what the voters do,and actually give us someone worth voting for if they want our votes.
-
It's PAST time for the political professionals to quit bitching about what the voters do,and actually give us someone worth voting for if they want our votes.
Well, since political professionals gave us Queen Athaliah and voters (actual or alleged Republicans) gave us
Caligula for last year's contest, I'm not exactly optimistic about either side. ;)
-
Well, since political professionals gave us Queen Athaliah and voters (actual or alleged Republicans) gave us
Caligula for last year's contest, I'm not exactly optimistic about either side. ;)
@EasyAce
I ain't going to claim I am anywhere close to being "wildly optimistic",but I do and will lay claim to being "hopeful". After all,what does it cost? Nothing at all,is the answer.
Compare that to the yahoos who have spend 24/7 whining,wailing,and gnashing their teeth in anguish because Bubbette! or JEB didn't win,and ALL they are contributing is noise and hatred. I honestly believe the goal of many (most?) of them is to try to set the stage for a failed Trump presidency by pissing him off. What Trump represents to THEM,seems to be a outsider who has endangered the corrupt systems they love,and it has them scared to death he might do something right and make them suffer even more. Otherwise they would just STFU and wait for him to screw up before jumping down his throat.
Hell,this might even backfire on them,like the little boy crying "Wolf!". By the time Trump gets sworn in and gets his cabinet working,people will be so tired of hearing this crap they will just ignore any real charges.
-
@EasyAce
I ain't going to claim I am anywhere close to being "wildly optimistic",but I do and will lay claim to being "hopeful". After all,what does it cost? Nothing at all,is the answer.
Nothing but---barring any Damascus moment not likely to occur in the next four years, at minimum---the further sustenance
if not metastasis of the State and the further dismissal if not dissipation of the individual.
Compare that to the yahoos who have spend 24/7 whining,wailing,and gnashing their teeth in anguish because Bubbette! or JEB didn't win,and ALL they are contributing is noise and hatred.
You seem to forget about a non-yahoo contingency who have reasons sound enough to be wary and contribute discourse. Surely
you are not succumbing to the temptation dangled by only too many to equate a reasonable critique with "hatred." It isn't, by
the way, crying "wolf" to question or demur from a particular pronouncement or proposal that smacks of un- or extra-constitutional
origin and might portend to immediate or strategic mischief. The continuing disgrace of the presidential cult to one side, there is
nothing either noisy or hate-filled, intrinsically, about holding a chief executive or elected representative's feet to the proverbial
fire.
I honestly believe the goal of many (most?) of them is to try to set the stage for a failed Trump presidency by pissing him off.
This is a man (I use the term quite loosely) who doesn't need extra stimulation to be pissed off, he accomplishes that quite
well on his own. His tendencies to leap before checking to see if there's water in the pool are about as obscure as blood in a
hockey game, sharks in the ocean, or angst in The New York Times.
What Trump represents to THEM,seems to be a outsider who has endangered the corrupt systems they love,and it has them scared to death he might do something right and make them suffer even more.
It would be refreshing if he were to do something right, bearing in mind that when we speak of the corrupt systems
"they" love, we speak of the monster at whose teat he suckled long enough. And he may yet discover how little to its taste
the monster finds attacks by someone for whom the monster provided to any degree.
-
Nothing but---barring any Damascus moment not likely to occur in the next four years, at minimum---the further sustenance
if not metastasis of the State and the further dismissal if not dissipation of the individual.
You seem to forget about a non-yahoo contingency who have reasons sound enough to be wary and contribute discourse. Surely
you are not succumbing to the temptation dangled by only too many to equate a reasonable critique with "hatred." It isn't, by
the way, crying "wolf" to question or demur from a particular pronouncement or proposal that smacks of un- or extra-constitutional
origin and might portend to immediate or strategic mischief. The continuing disgrace of the presidential cult to one side, there is
nothing either noisy or hate-filled, intrinsically, about holding a chief executive or elected representative's feet to the proverbial
fire.
This is a man (I use the term quite loosely) who doesn't need extra stimulation to be pissed off, he accomplishes that quite
well on his own. His tendencies to leap before checking to see if there's water in the pool are about as obscure as blood in a
hockey game, sharks in the ocean, or angst in The New York Times.
It would be refreshing if he were to do something right, bearing in mind that when we speak of the corrupt systems
"they" love, we speak of the monster at whose teat he suckled long enough. And he may yet discover how little to its taste
the monster finds attacks by someone for whom the monster provided to any degree.
@EasyAce
Ok,so you have already given up on him before he even walks into the WH. You and the others are so ready to damn him now,there is not one chance in hell he will ever do anything that pleases you,short of suicide or resigning.
-
@EasyAce
Ok,so you have already given up on him before he even walks into the WH.
Remember---I voted "None of These Candidates" in November. Meaning I didn't care for any of the presidential
candidates going in. You can't give up on someone in whom you had little to no faith in the first place. It is
he who bears the burden of proof.
You and the others are so ready to damn him now,there is not one chance in hell he will ever do anything that pleases you,short of suicide or resigning.
Now, where have I heard rhetoric like that before?
Oh, yes. I remember.
From leftists who demurred from our very similar wariness (only too well justified) toward His Excellency Al-Hashish
Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Have-Been Life President of the Republic
Formerly Known as the United States---before he even assumed his throne.
And, from those who demurred from our very similar wariness (only too well justified) toward President Lips II---
before he even assumed his throne.
If wariness toward a) the cult of the Presidency qua the cult of the Presidency; and, b) the advent of a
president who offers little to no indication that he comprehends the Constitution, can or will construe it
reasonably, and can or will behave accordingly in office, equals a predisposition toward damnation, then I'm
only too proud to wear the accusation.
For someone whom I have known a long time as a man who never shied from holding any elected official's feet
to the fire and who professed to have been wary enough of Donaldus Minimus even while pulling the lever for him,
you certainly seem determined now to see that his feet be made fireproof.
-
In 2008, newly minted president Barack Obama raised a lot of eyebrows before taking office. Some of the chattering class questioned his management style since he had zero management experience. Others questioned his world view because other than a few books he was largely an enigma. During his time as a state representative and as a senator he was essentially a no-show.
It was like waking up in Las Vegas with one king hell of a hangover and looking at the woman lying next to you, then vaguely remembering something about a wedding last night. Jesus, I don't even know her name.
-
I honestly believe the goal of many (most?) of them is to try to set the stage for a failed Trump presidency by pissing him off.
:shrug: Plenty of Presidents have come before with the criticism Trump is getting and more, why must he be such a snowflake? Is he that fragile and delicate?
-
Remember---I voted "None of These Candidates" in November. Meaning I didn't care for any of the presidential
candidates going in. You can't give up on someone in whom you had little to no faith in the first place. It is
he who bears the burden of proof.
@EasyAce
BullBush! YOU are the one responsible for YOUR actions,not Trump or anyone else. If you are going to damn someone,the burden of proof is on YOU to prove their guilt. This is America,no one has to prove their innocence.
And this goes double for someone who has done nothing either positive OR negative yet and is not in a position yet to do either. You are not 8 years old and wanting a new toy. You are an adult. Act like one. Once Trump is sworn in and starts taking actions/making moves,feel free to damn or praise him all you want,but neither you nor anyone else has the right to damn someone who has never held public office before and has no track record to allow you,me,or anyone else to predict what he will do once in office.
We all pretty much knew what we were getting with Boy Jorge,the Clintons,and Obomber. All any of us can do with Trump at this point is guess,and I am saying MAYBE,if people were to encourage him to do the things that need to be done by reminding him of how he will appear in the history books if he takes this seriously,he just MIGHT do the right thing from OUR POV most of the time.
"Now, where have I heard rhetoric like that before?"
I don't think you have. I think you are confused.
"Oh, yes. I remember.
From leftists who demurred from our very similar wariness (only too well justified) toward His Excellency Al-Hashish
Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Have-Been Life President of the Republic
Formerly Known as the United States---before he even assumed his throne."
HorseHillary! If you are calling me a leftist or any other species of group-thinker and follower,you need to sober up before posting.
As for AA Barry,there was never even the tiniest bit of doubt in anyone's mind he was an AA token hire. We ALL knew what we were getting. The left and members of his tribe were giddy as school girls at the thought of having an AA president that would sign any damn fool thing put before him. Those of us who are conservative knew we were getting Castro with a tan.
"And, from those who demurred from our very similar wariness (only too well justified) toward President Lips II---
before he even assumed his throne."
See the above. Unlike Bathhouse Barry,Clinton,and the Bush Crime Family, Trump has no political track record, no record of loyalty to either party,and he damn sure doesn't owe the DNC or the RNC a damn thing. What little we know of his background he has spent his life buying and selling politicians,not being bought and sold by politicians. This gives him an advantage,and I have no idea why you and others can't see that.
"If wariness toward a) the cult of the Presidency qua the cult of the Presidency; and, b) the advent of a
president who offers little to no indication that he comprehends the Constitution, can or will construe it
reasonably, and can or will behave accordingly in office, equals a predisposition toward damnation, then I'm
only too proud to wear the accusation."
Blah,blah,blah. You are sounding like the mindless party drones. You know better than that.
"For someone whom I have known a long time as a man who never shied from holding any elected official's feet
to the fire and who professed to have been wary enough of Donaldus Minimus even while pulling the lever for him,
you certainly seem determined now to see that his feet be made fireproof."
Never doubt I won't be ready to jump right down his throat the instant he starts to stray. The difference between me and the rest of you is that I am willing to wait until he actually takes office and starts to do things before I start to criticize him for actions and policy decisions he hasn't even made yet.
-
:shrug: Plenty of Presidents have come before with the criticism Trump is getting and more, why must he be such a snowflake? Is he that fragile and delicate?
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
WHAT part of him not having a political history of doing wrong is it that you and the others are having so much trouble understanding?
Would you have been happier with the Clintons back in the WH?
WHY are you people making up your minds BEFORE you have ANY facts to base your opinions/judgements on?
You DO understand you are going to have a minimum of 4 years to be critical of him AFTER he starts doing things,right?
-
My entire life politicians have labored mightily to solve the Israeli / Palestinian problem. Every president I can remember has expended incredible resources to find a workable solution. What they failed to understand is that a solution was never even remotely possible at the bargaining table. ALL of Yasser Arafat's power was derived from that conflict. Any viable solution would have stripped Arafat of ALL of his power.
As long as I can remember Jesse Jackson has been blackmailing businesses to enrich himself and his Rainbow Coalition. ALL of his leverage and importance was derived from his ability to blackmail. Had any realistic bargains been struck along the way in response to his "list of issues" then Jesse Jackson would have been stripped of ALL of his power.
Today we are witnessing Barack Obama do everything under the sun to poison the well for the incoming administration. We also are witnessing Democrats promising to fight Trump at every turn. Not because they have legitimate concerns over cabinet nominees or future legislation. No, they make no bones about it. They have come right out and told the entire world they are fighting Trump just to fight. Their sole intention is to make Trump's life a living hell.
ALL of the Democrat's remaining power is derived from conflict. They have no intentions whatsoever of loosening their grip on that power. Any attempts to negotiate, bargain, or even to stop and listen to their complaints is a fool's errand.
-
Our citizenry has changed as well. What suffices today for analysis by talking heads would have been laughed out of the room a few decades ago.
I have seen with my own eyes a round table discussion on CNN an in-depth analysis of why Obama took control of GM. To a person they went around the table, all nodding and repeating the exact same phrase, "He had to do it", "He had to do it".
That's it. The sum total of the assembled brain trust was "He had to do it". No details, no explanation, not even a string of lies. Five simple words would do the trick.
A few decades ago 90% of Americans sitting at home would throw their shoes at the TV and vow to never watch CNN again for such a blatant insult to their intelligence. Today's citizenry has changed, no explanations required. It's beyond an outrage, it's beyond a disgrace, it is un-American.
It's not "un-American". It's illustrative of how the radical/extremist left has (and still is) fundamentally transformed America. It's anti-American.
-
My entire life politicians have labored mightily to solve the Israeli / Palestinian problem. Every president I can remember has expended incredible resources to find a workable solution. What they failed to understand is that a solution was never even remotely possible at the bargaining table. ALL of Yasser Arafat's power was derived from that conflict. Any viable solution would have stripped Arafat of ALL of his power.
As long as I can remember Jesse Jackson has been blackmailing businesses to enrich himself and his Rainbow Coalition. ALL of his leverage and importance was derived from his ability to blackmail. Had any realistic bargains been struck along the way in response to his "list of issues" then Jesse Jackson would have been stripped of ALL of his power.
Today we are witnessing Barack Obama do everything under the sun to poison the well for the incoming administration. We also are witnessing Democrats promising to fight Trump at every turn. Not because they have legitimate concerns over cabinet nominees or future legislation. No, they make no bones about it. They have come right out and told the entire world they are fighting Trump just to fight. Their sole intention is to make Trump's life a living hell.
ALL of the Democrat's remaining power is derived from conflict. They have no intentions whatsoever of loosening their grip on that power. Any attempts to negotiate, bargain, or even to stop and listen to their complaints is a fool's errand.
@Hondo69
:beer: :beer: :beer: You sure knocked THAT one out of the park!
I can only add that ANYONE who thinks THEY can solve anyone else's problems is a fool. People have to solve their OWN problems. No one can do it for them if it is to be an actual solution instead of a temporary pause.
-
@Hondo69
:beer: :beer: :beer: You sure knocked THAT one out of the park!
I can only add that ANYONE who thinks THEY can solve anyone else's problems is a fool. People have to solve their OWN problems. No one can do it for them if it is to be an actual solution instead of a temporary pause.
:amen:
And that thought has a brother (borrowed from psychology): Nobody ever helps anyone. We can only help someone else to help themselves. Until a person takes full responsibility for the success of their own life, and start believing that they themselves have more power over their own ultimate destiny than someone (anyone) else, they are incapable of succeeding in anything important in life.
That is one of the central fundamental problems with leftist Statism - instilling in people that they have less power to control their own life than someone else.
Success in life is never based on a single decision or even a few. Life is a long series of choices. Making the better choices at each turn in the road and eventually one gets to a place called Success. Make too many bad turns and one can eventually get stuck up a creek without a paddle.
-
Aside from the fact that, once upon a time, those who could and did buy and sell politicians at will were precisely
the kind of people we sought (the success record varies) to keep from holding public office, you ought to think
about this:
What little we know of his background . . . gives him an advantage,and I have no idea why you and others can't see that.
What "little" we know?
The man's background is well on record. So are his assorted pronouncements during the campaign and
no few of his doings (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-carrier-deal-is-the-opposite-of-conservatism/2016/12/06/ccbb1732-bbe4-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.577eae63e67a) since his election. He has said and is doing things we would have condemned had they been
said and done by the like of two Bushes, one Clinton, one Obama, and another Clinton had she been elected. Now
we're supposed to just wait and see whether the national china shop, about to welcome a reckless bull, will be
shattered again?
On the actual day any American citizen bears any burden of proof over any elected official, that's the day I realise
citizenship, too, is as malleable as constitutional government has been made to become. On the actual day any American
citizen loses his or her right at last to hold any elected official's feet to the fire at any time, never mind in the days
before that official assumes office, that's the day I realise citizenship really does mean nothing, and that every last
doing or undoing in our lives is a political doing or undoing---an idea the American experiment once rejected.
Those days---contrary to the wet dreams of assorted elected (or appointed) officials and their sycophancies---have
yet to be consecrated into part and parcel of the law of the land, and I for one would fight any and every bid to
make them so.
I find it sadly amusing to see people who would have condemned the idea formerly now succumbing to the cult of
the presidency they once condemned when it comes to the reckless bull welcomed into the national china shop. By
the way, I admit the phrase "the cult of the presidency" wasn't my own invention. It was the invention of the author
of this imperative book . . .
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BZC%2Bzfo3L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
. . . and, its equally imperative followup . . .
(http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/images/false-idol-205.jpg)
You might care to put those two books on your reading list, even while you pray that Donaldus Minimus will not inspire
Mr. Healy to write a second followup to be called, perhaps, Behold Your God: Donald Trump and the Still Continuing
Cult of the Presidency. And remind yourself that, once upon a time, you, too, fought the good fight against the cult,
even if you might not have phrased it that way.
-
What "little" we know?
The man's background is well on record.
Yes,what little we actually know. He is a P.T.Barnum character come to life. What we know about him is almost all about the image he has been selling all his life to become famous so that other people want to give him their money.
Yeah,he talks a lot of crap. ALL businessmen talk a lot of crap. It's part of negotiating a deal. You throw out a proposal stating you HAVE to have the Earth,the Moon,and the Stars,and anything short of that and you will walk. Then you start to negotiate it down to the point where they are happy to give you what you actually wanted to start with.
Maybe he will be a good president,and maybe he will suck. I don't know at this point,and neither do you.
-
Yes,what little we actually know. He is a P.T.Barnum character come to life. What we know about him is almost all about the image he has been selling all his life to become famous so that other people want to give him their money.
That right there should be reason enough to be wary; and, to have the bastard's feet to the fire as a precautionary
measure before he assumes the crown---oops! the presidency.
Yeah,he talks a lot of crap. ALL businessmen talk a lot of crap. It's part of negotiating a deal.
Sounds a lot like politicians, no? ;)
Maybe he will be a good president,and maybe he will suck. I don't know at this point,and neither do you.
Since I don't consider a good president to be a quasi-monarch who gives no indication thus far that he sees above or beyond
the postulates that the State is alpha and omega, the individual is nothing by comparison, and the market is less (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-carrier-deal-is-the-opposite-of-conservatism/2016/12/06/ccbb1732-bbe4-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.577eae63e67a), I'd say he's
0-for-1 with a swinging strikeout after one inning of play---and that's even before he assumes his crown (oops! his presidency . . .).
-
That right there should be reason enough to be wary; and, to have the bastard's feet to the fire as a precautionary
measure before he assumes the crown---oops! the presidency."
@EasyAce
Get off your high horse or put a name to the political creature that was also running for President that was any better. Or even as good,given the FACT that he owes no politician or political party a damn thing because the politicians of both branches of the ruling party have made him pay cash on the barrel head for any "favors" they have done for him in the past.
"Sounds a lot like politicians, no? ;)"
That's why they call it "politics".
"Since I don't consider a good president to be a quasi-monarch who gives no indication thus far that he sees above or beyond
the postulates that the State is alpha and omega, the individual is nothing by comparison, and the market is less (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-carrier-deal-is-the-opposite-of-conservatism/2016/12/06/ccbb1732-bbe4-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.577eae63e67a), I'd say he's
0-for-1 with a swinging strikeout after one inning of play---and that's even before he assumes his crown (oops! his presidency . . .)."
Well,yeah,you can say that IF you are happy about allowing your per-conceived opinions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than brain farts to rule your intellect.
OR.......,and here is a radical thought,wait until AFTER he is sworn in and actually starts doing something before screaming about how incompetent and crooked he is. Maybe even try to offer suggestions instead of accusations?
-
Get off your high horse or put a name to the political creature that was also running for President that was any better.
Remember what I wrote earlier: I voted "None of These Candidates" on the ballot line for the White
House. Why would I do so unless I found none of them to be worthy of holding the office? I
said it often enough during the campaign and on Election Day. Which part of "None of These Candidates"
was that difficult for someone to comprehend?
Well,yeah,you can say that IF you are happy about allowing your per-conceived opinions based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than brain farts to rule your intellect.
Spoken like someone who paid little to no attention to the man, his sayings, or his known doings prior
to running for the White House. Put to one side his character issues, focus on him as a candidate and
then a president-elect, and then ask yourself why on earth you would be anything less than wary about
a man who's given no indication that he favours arresting or turning back the metastasis of
the State (we haven't had a properly construed government in a very long time), or that he favours
a genuinely free market as opposed to a crony (http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/03/donald-trump-makes-factually-challenged) capitalist one (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-targets-gm-on-chevy-cruzes-imported-from-mexico-1483448986), or that he believes in individual rights and
sovereignty to any degree.
Bad enough we've just survived a presidential election highlighted by some of the worst candidates for the
office of which our history has record. Worse is the suggestion that the winner is or ought to be immune
from skepticism or criticism at any point after he was elected. Especially since he hasn't exactly waited until
assuming the formal oath of office to "do things" too many of which can be called at minimum dubious. The
good news has been that some of his prospective cabinet appointments (especially those not named Jeff
Sessions) get it. The bad news is that his very disposition disinclines toward accepting counsel he simply
doesn't like.
Gary Johnson---the Libertarian Party presidential candidate who wasn't exactly that much of a libertarian
(if anything, a deeper look suggested he was closer to a vintage style Rockefeller Republican)---at least
said and seemed to mean, "I'm not running for king." Donaldus Minimus may not have phrased it
in quite such words, but his every move suggested he was indeed running for king. A man running for
king, literally or figuratively, doesn't always comprehend that not every damn last matter of life requires
a political or a governmental decision or solution. A man running for king, literally or figuratively, doesn't
get that the vast majority of such matters are decided best and left in the hands of individual citizens.
Donaldus Minimus thinks he's out to make America great again. I'd have preferred a candidate who
preferred to do whatever a president can do within reasonable constitutional means (ask yourself if
Donaldus Minimus really understands reasonable constitutional means) to make America America
again. Seeing no such candidate, really, I voted "None of These Candidates." And I'd vote that way
again right now if an election were to be held and a similar offering of candidates was presented.
-
Spoken like someone who paid little to no attention to the man, his sayings, or his known doings prior
to running for the White House. Put to one side his character issues, focus on him as a candidate and
then a president-elect, and then ask yourself why on earth you would be anything less than wary about
a man ...."
@EasyAce
WHOAAAAAAA,COWBOY! Where have I EVER said I wasn't wary of him? In FACT,if you will check the post that started this thread,you will see I didn't decide to vote for him until the night before the election,as well as why I finally decided to vote for him.
Anybody that ISN'T wary of anyone wanting to be president is a damn fool. The FACT that remains is he couldn't be worse than the Clintons if he tried,and it WAS going to be him or her sitting in the WH on 21 Jan 2017.
And,despite all verbal stones you threw at him as well as all the verbal stones *I* threw at him,neither one of us has any proof of how he is going to act or conduct himself as president because he has never held public office before. He will have to work hard 24/7 to be worse that the Bush Crime Family or the Clinton Crime Family,and frankly,I don't think that will happen because unlike the Clintons and the Bushes,he is driven by ego,not greed.
-
The FACT that remains is he couldn't be worse than the Clintons if he tried . . .
You've got to be kidding.
. . . and it WAS going to be him or her sitting in the WH on 21 Jan 2017.
Yep. A choice between Caligula and Queen Athaliah.
. . . neither one of us has any proof of how he is going to act or conduct himself as president because he has never held public office before. He will have to work hard 24/7 to be worse that the Bush Crime Family or the Clinton Crime Family,and frankly,I don't think that will happen because unlike the Clintons and the Bushes, he is driven by ego,not greed.
Never mind how much ego did play into many of the Bush and Clinton doings/undoings (more than you think), if you really think greed
isn't as much a part of (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/06/donald-trumps-greed-helped-ruin-atlantic-city-is-the-rest-of-the-country-next/?utm_term=.6ecffada6ac2) Donaldus Minimus's modus operandi (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/09/11/donald-trump-vain-greedy-and-all-american/?utm_term=.9ce0ed4f6a66) as ego (https://qz.com/793425/presidential-debate-donald-trumps-defining-business-philosophy-was-naked-greed/), you weren't paying as much attention to the man
as you thought you did. Jesus Louise-us, he bragged about it (https://qz.com/792408/presidential-debate-donald-trump-bragged-about-not-paying-taxes-and-taking-advantage-of-bankruptcy-laws/) at one of the presidential campaign debates. Don't get me wrong,
how much money a man or woman thinks he or she should earn or have isn't my concern, and I'm not any kind of advocate
of wealth redistribution. But don't tell me greed isn't as much part of his MO as ego because on more than one
occasion in the past couple of years (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/265335-trump-im-very-greedy) he's flat out said it is and he couldn't care less who knows it. Atlantic City
is only one locale that wishes otherwise.
-
You've got to be kidding.
Yep. A choice between Caligula and Queen Athaliah.
Never mind how much ego did play into many of the Bush and Clinton doings/undoings (more than you think), if you really think greed
isn't as much a part of (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/06/donald-trumps-greed-helped-ruin-atlantic-city-is-the-rest-of-the-country-next/?utm_term=.6ecffada6ac2) Donaldus Minimus's modus operandi (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/09/11/donald-trump-vain-greedy-and-all-american/?utm_term=.9ce0ed4f6a66) as ego (https://qz.com/793425/presidential-debate-donald-trumps-defining-business-philosophy-was-naked-greed/), you weren't paying as much attention to the man
as you thought you did. Jesus Louise-us, he bragged about it (https://qz.com/792408/presidential-debate-donald-trump-bragged-about-not-paying-taxes-and-taking-advantage-of-bankruptcy-laws/) at one of the presidential campaign debates. Don't get me wrong,
how much money a man or woman thinks he or she should earn or have isn't my concern, and I'm not any kind of advocate
of wealth redistribution. But don't tell me greed isn't as much part of his MO as ego because on more than one
occasion in the past couple of years (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/265335-trump-im-very-greedy) he's flat out said it is and he couldn't care less who knows it. Atlantic City
is only one locale that wishes otherwise.
@EasyAce
You are really going to be heartbroken if he turns out to be even a semi-good president. You have all this hatred and other emotions invested in him being worse than the Clinton and Bush Crime Families,which just ain't possible,and are really going to be distressed if your dreams don't come true.
-
Oh, he has the potential to be worse.
-
Oh, he has the potential to be worse.
I can't wait. The suspense is killing me.
-
@EasyAce
You are really going to be heartbroken if he turns out to be even a semi-good president.
Heartbroken, no. Surprised, yes.
You have all this hatred and other emotions invested in him being worse than the Clinton and Bush Crime Families . . .
Yep, there it is. Anyone demurring from automatic acquiescence, no matter how reasonable their tone or words,
no matter the evidence they adduce in support, they're just a "hater" full of "hatred."
Congratulations. You've now become what you used to assail, and quite well at that, when hit with the same fraudulent
epithet by the Obama, Bush, and Clinton sycophancies.
-
Heartbroken, no. Surprised, yes.
Yep, there it is. Anyone demurring from automatic acquiescence, no matter how reasonable their tone or words,
no matter the evidence they adduce in support, they're just a "hater" full of "hatred."
Congratulations. You've now become what you used to assail, and quite well at that, when hit with the same fraudulent
epithet by the Obama, Bush, and Clinton sycophancies.
@EasyAce
I hope you were looking into a mirror when you thought that.
-
@EasyAce
I hope you were looking into a mirror when you thought that.
The only time I look in a mirror is when I brush my hair and shave every morning. But please,
spare me the visitation of your (lack of) wit---it hurts you far more than it'll ever hurt me.
-
The only time I look in a mirror is when I brush my hair and shave every morning. But please,
spare me the visitation of your (lack of) wit---it hurts you far more than it'll ever hurt me.
@EasyAce
Hit a sore spot,didn't I. You are so focused on Trump being a failure,that you will be a failure if he isn't horrible. You gave yourself away when you admitted you didn't think it was possible for him to be worse than the Bush or Clinton clans.
-
@bigheadfred
The title made me decide to not read it because it implies Cronkite was honest. He was one of the biggest liars in our nation's history,as well as one of the people who worked hard to destroy our Republic.
When Cronkite deemed the Vietnam War 'unwinnable' after our troops had already kicked the VC out of every provincial capital except Hue after the Tet offensive, 'and that's the way it was' became 'wasn't' as far as I was concerned.
He had gravitas, but so did Dan Rather (who got caught).
-
Plenty of people have the advantages / opportunities that DJT had but did not establish a string of successes which earned them billions.
I'm not so sure about that, especially on the 'advantages' end. I think the number of people whose daddy will loan them a million dollars or more to get started is a pretty small subset of the human race.
That said, for America's sake I hope he succeeds in undoing the damage of the Obamas and Clintons and others and gets the nation back up to speed, and I pray he does it without further mauling the Constitution.
-
I'm not so sure about that, especially on the 'advantages' end. I think the number of people whose daddy will loan them a million dollars or more to get started is a pretty small subset of the human race."
IIRC,he inherited 18 Million from his grandfather when he turned 18 or 21,can't remember which now,and got another 200 million when his father died. I'm guessing that's pretty rarefied territory unless you come from New England Trust Fund Money. I neither hate him nor envy him for having all that money or those advantages. How can I,since he had nothing to do with it?
"That said, for America's sake I hope he succeeds in undoing the damage of the Obamas and Clintons and others and gets the nation back up to speed, and I pray he does it without further mauling the Constitution."
EXACTLY. I will never understand who so many people are playing the role of Nervous Nelly over him winning instead of the Clintons winning. Despite what some people fear/hope for,there is no way he could be worse than a Bush or a Clinton. At MOST,he can be as bad,so the odds are that he will be better. Even if he sucks at the job he will STILL be better than the Clinton or the Bush Crime Family,and he is already starting out at an advantage because he has broken the monopoly death grip professional political insiders have on the White House.
Besides,the man isn't even in office yet,and I hear more pissing and moaning about how horrible he is than anything I remember hearing about any president in my lifetime because BOTH sides of the political dictatorships are jumping down his throat, as well as a complicit media. That collective bully effort alone makes me want to support him. After all,if BOTH the alleged GOP and the DNC hate him,how bad CAN he be? The whole "the enemy of MY enemy" thing applies.
-
I'm not so sure about that, especially on the 'advantages' end. I think the number of people whose daddy will loan them a million dollars or more to get started is a pretty small subset of the human race.
That said, for America's sake I hope he succeeds in undoing the damage of the Obamas and Clintons and others and gets the nation back up to speed, and I pray he does it without further mauling the Constitution.
Don't Worry. He will mall everything he can.
-
Possibly! He might also maul everything else. After all, Trump is the most evil man who ever lived! He eats babies for breakfast, puppies for lunch and drives himself around town instead of taking limos so he can swerve up onto the sidewalk and run over little old ladies (then eats them for dinner). The only other living person who is as evil as Donald John Trump is Dr. Moriarty or perhaps Dr. Miguelito Loveless. Any difference between them is very small.
(http://img.rp.vhd.me/4576408_l2.jpg)
-
@sneakypete
IIRC,he inherited 18 Million from his grandfather when he turned 18 or 21,can't remember which now,and got another 200 million when his father died. I'm guessing that's pretty rarefied territory unless you come from New England Trust Fund Money. I neither hate him nor envy him for having all that money or those advantages. How can I,since he had nothing to do with it?
I don't hate or envy him, either, over that. Money has a way of creating its own problems.
I just think it is disingenuous for anyone to pretend he pulled himself up by his bootstraps. He had a significant head start. There is a point where (if you don't piss it away) enough money will make money. It's why the second generation usually only manages to keep the empire together, and the third starts the downhill slide (after the pie has been divvied up).
-
@sneakypete I don't hate or envy him, either, over that. Money has a way of creating its own problems. "
@Smokin Joe
Yes,it does.
"I just think it is disingenuous for anyone to pretend he pulled himself up by his bootstraps."
10 Dollar word for "lying".
"He had a significant head start."
No,he started standing on the "finished" side of the "finish line". Which *I* see as possibly the most positive thing about him,based ironically enough on his puffed-up ego. Deep down he knows he has accomplished very little because the skids were greased for him at birth. Because of this he is psychologically desperate to prove to the world that he really IS the "winner" he claims to be. I THINK there is a very good possibility his enormous ego will drive him to try to become the best president of all time (winner). Maybe he won't be successful,BUT......,it will still be refreshing to see someone actually TRY to be a good president instead of getting the job and retiring in place while trying to sell the country down the drain for a cut of the take both before and after they leave office. There is NO amount of money more important to Trump than protecting his self-image as a "winner".
If I am wrong,it just more of the same. Business as usual. But IF I am right,this might end up being something really special. It is already special in the sense that his run for the WH has destroyed the insider good old boy club,where candidates had to kiss the rings of the RNC and the DNC to have any hope at all of winning. That alone is a pretty significant accomplishment.
-
If I am wrong,it just more of the same. Business as usual. But IF I am right,this might end up being something really special. It is already special in the sense that his run for the WH has destroyed the insider good old boy club,where candidates had to kiss the rings of the RNC and the DNC to have any hope at all of winning. That alone is a pretty significant accomplishment.
Being wrong could have some different results.
In his quest for being 'the greatest', he might start breaking rules to impose policy extra-Constitutionally. I want things set right, but have great concern if we end up with two juxtaposed presidents running things like dictators. To say the least, that would be a dangerous precedent and establish a 'fundamental change' that could be the end of any hope to restore the Constitutional Republic.
So I want positive (conservative) change, but within the rules. His ego might lead him to break those rules, and that would be dangerous to all our Liberty in the long run.
He also might underperform in that sense, and do little or nothing but a few 'feelgood' projects that give the illusion of progress back to the Republic, but accomplish little. That would be a wasted opportunity, but little different than the Bush administration in that regard, possibly without engaging in a war or two.
In the worst case scenario, he might whip out some leftist stances which have the full hell-bent vote buying capability that makes them popular among certain very vocal sets and go the wrong way. I would hope anyone in the GOP (and elsewhere) evaluates the policy and doesn't assume the source makes it good, but that is the somnolent pitfall Republicans seem to fall into, the assumption that all is good because 'their guy' is in office. They all demand our scrutiny.
I'm a little suspicious of his 'outsider' status, too. Oh, as a politician, certainly, he hasn't held office himself. That doesn't mean he hasn't played 'kingmaker' a bit, both with contributions and appearances, close enough to the throne to affect it, but not sitting on it. Behind the scenes, that can affect policy, especially those he hobnobs with--and with a high public profile, such hobnobbing would be expected.
But he has apparently shocked the media and the Dems. Perhaps they underestimated the number of people they were pissing off. Even with rampant dislike of Trump within the Republican Party, the exodus of many long term party members, and the negatives he had, the heir apparent to the Obama chair failed to prevail. That refutation, fragmented as it was, in a low turnout year in the General, and with some 10% going to other than GOP or DEM candidates (a rejection of both major candidates), was a clear refutation of both the liberal (leftist) candidates and their policies and actions, as well as the policies they passed, and the claims they had made of success. That alone was good to see.
-
Being wrong could have some different results.
In his quest for being 'the greatest', he might start breaking rules to impose policy extra-Constitutionally."
Not a chance. Not even presidents can break Constitutional Law,and Congress can and will nullify anything he does that is too radical. Don't forget,while he no doubt has a certain amount of clout with Congress due to voters telling their congresscritters to support him,there is a limit to how far they will go,and I have ZERO doubt individual members of Congress have already held numerous "off the clock/unofficial" meetings to discuss how they can screw him and spread the blame so none of them have to suffer voter wrath. People like congresscritters from the northeast and the left coast can do pretty much anything they want because those areas aren't even a part of America anymore,but not all congresscritters have the luxury of a totally brain-dead voter base. Not even the official Dims,never mind the semi-Dims in the GOP.
I think we are going to end up with some serious checks and balances as a result of this election. Don't forget,Trump is the only president in history that has not only had the ability to "speak" directly to the public in a unfiltered way due to twitter,but the only one that has the will because he is not a part of the Party System.
" I want things set right, but have great concern if we end up with two juxtaposed presidents running things like dictators. To say the least, that would be a dangerous precedent and establish a 'fundamental change' that could be the end of any hope to restore the Constitutional Republic."
Once again,there is less chance of that with a Trump presidency that in any time during our lives. If anything,the Trump win PREVENTED having another dictator in the WH. Anybody that doesn't think Hillary Clinton or any of the Republican Party favorites wouldn't have represented and promoted "more of the same" is delusional. T
"So I want positive (conservative) change, but within the rules. His ego might lead him to break those rules, and that would be dangerous to all our Liberty in the long run. "
That is where we disagree. What I want most is a president that will break the rules because it seems to me that most of the rules are un-Constitutional and designed to protect the political parties and the politicians,not the people or the Constitution.
"He also might underperform in that sense, and do little or nothing but a few 'feelgood' projects that give the illusion of progress back to the Republic, but accomplish little. "
I have no doubt that will happen. It will happen with any of them because most of that crap is done to please the voting public,most of whom only seem to care about themselves,and not the country. Politicians have to at least pay lip service to them or they won't get anything done and won't get re-elected. Most of that stuff ends up being nothing but empty promises to keep the Rubes off their backs.
"I'm a little suspicious of his 'outsider' status, too. Oh, as a politician, certainly, he hasn't held office himself. That doesn't mean he hasn't played 'kingmaker' a bit, both with contributions and appearances, close enough to the throne to affect it, but not sitting on it. Behind the scenes, that can affect policy, especially those he hobnobs with--and with a high public profile, such hobnobbing would be expected."
He may not be a virgin,but he's also not a whore. His involvement in political and public corruption has been from the buyer's side,not the seller side. Given his ego,you KNOW that had to frost his flakes because it simply amounts to paying tribute. Yeah,he played the game from the outside because that is what he had to do to advance his business interests,but I'd bet money he didn't enjoy it.
Once again,this is all nothing but speculation from both me and you. I take heart from recognizing the FACT that if he only does half the bad crap we fear he will still be the best president since Reagan,and will share the "best president in the last 100 years" podium with Reagan.
Balance your fears of what Trump MAY do against your certain knowledge of what Hillary WOULD have done.
-
Once again,this is all nothing but speculation from both me and you. I take heart from recognizing the FACT that if he only does half the bad crap we fear he will still be the best president since Reagan, and will share the "best president in the last 100 years" podium with Reagan.
Balance your fears of what Trump MAY do against your certain knowledge of what Hillary WOULD have done.
goopo @sneakypete :thumbsup3:
-
Balance your fears of what Trump MAY do against your certain knowledge of what Hillary WOULD have done.
There is no certain knowledge of what Hillary would have done, only speculation. That speculation is a grim picture, but I would have expected the same full resistance from the Congress and other entities you claim Trump will get if he goes out of bounds.
Besides, I'm not about to use speculation about what she might have done against him as a metric. I have said that before. He made a bunch of promises, let those be the test, instead of letting him off with 'he isn't half as bad as something that did not happen'.
-
There is no certain knowledge of what Hillary would have done, only speculation. That speculation is a grim picture, but I would have expected the same full resistance from the Congress and other entities you claim Trump will get if he goes out of bounds."
Good thinking! We all know how congress loves to hold Clinton feet to the fire,and how the Dims are so honest and patriotic that they would never dream of giving her political cover. After all,like Trump she is an outsider,new to elective office and with no allies to help her.
"Besides, I'm not about to use speculation about what she might have done against him as a metric. I have said that before. He made a bunch of promises, let those be the test, instead of letting him off with 'he isn't half as bad as something that did not happen'."
Nothing more than self-justification to excuse yourself for not voting against Hillary.
-
Just one problem with that pete: The GOP has been running the Congress for a while.
If you'd expect them to stop Trump from getting out of line, they should have been equally effective at stopping Obama or Hillary.
Say what?
They didn't do sh*t?
Well now, there goes the argument they will keep anyone in line, doesn't it?
They are mostly there to line their pockets and save their phony baloney jobs.
And by the way, I DID vote against Hillary. I just didn't vote for Trump.
-
Just one problem with that pete: The GOP has been running the Congress for a while.
If you'd expect them to stop Trump from getting out of line, they should have been equally effective at stopping Obama or Hillary.
Say what?
They didn't do sh*t?
Well now, there goes the argument they will keep anyone in line, doesn't it?
They are mostly there to line their pockets and save their phony baloney jobs.
And by the way, I DID vote against Hillary. I just didn't vote for Trump.
Exactly, Joe.
I didn't vote for hillary. I didn't vote for trump.
Did it make a difference in the election @sneakypete? No.
Did it make a difference in my life? No. Get it?
-
Just one problem with that pete: The GOP has been running the Congress for a while.
If you'd expect them to stop Trump from getting out of line, they should have been equally effective at stopping Obama or Hillary.
Say what?
They didn't do sh*t?
Well now, there goes the argument they will keep anyone in line, doesn't it? "
No. The Dim and alleged Republicans in congress are in a mutual "you scratch my back,I'll scratch yours" society. They owe each other favors. None of them owe Trump anything. Not even the alleged Republicans. Granted,most of the alleged Republican leadership creatures will have to go along with him on most things to keep the illusion alive they are different than the Dims,but it only takes a few voting with the Dims to pass or stop a bill,and the Dims have no reason and no inclination to go along with him on anything.
<I>And by the way, I DID vote against Hillary. I just didn't vote for Trump.</I>
You just keep telling yourself that if it's what it takes to get to sleep at night. Even you know deep in your heart it was a passive vote for her,though.
-
Exactly, Joe.
I didn't vote for hillary. I didn't vote for trump.
Did it make a difference in the election @sneakypete? No.
Did it make a difference in my life? No. Get it?
@bigheadfred
Sure I get it. You don't care who wins.
-
Granted,most of the alleged Republican leadership creatures will have to go along with him on most things to keep the illusion alive they are different than the Dims,but it only takes a few voting with the Dims to pass or stop a bill,and the Dims have no reason and no inclination to go along with him on anything.
That reminds me...what's the over/under on the date John McCain first stabs Trump in the back on a close vote?
-
@bigheadfred
Sure I get it. You don't care who wins.
Sure I care who won, Pete. My morals are intact, my conscience is clear, and my brand of conservatism is untarnished by my vote.
I won, Pete. I won.
-
You just keep telling yourself that if it's what it takes to get to sleep at night. Even you know deep in your heart it was a passive vote for her,though.
I know my motives, you are wrong.
I voted for a Constitutionalist (something neither major party was running in the General)--a guy in favor of getting back to something Trump doesn't know, and that Hillary would use for asswipe.
If you're going to peddle that "If you didn't support Trump you supported Hillary" dreck, I won't even waste my time scrolling past it.
-
That reminds me...what's the over/under on the date John McCain first stabs Trump in the back on a close vote?
@Cyber Liberty
I dunno,but given that he is already jumping in front of every tv camera he can find to attack Trump and defend Hillary/the system in place",anybody that bets on anything other than Day One is going to be losing money. You can bet the farm he has already agreed to cast that vote and others behind the scenes,and they are just waiting for Trump to take the oath so they can begin.
That semi-human piece of shit Lady Lindsey Graham was on Meet the Press this morning screaming about how we "need" US military bases built in Ukraine.
-
I know my motives, you are wrong.
I voted for a Constitutionalist (something neither major party was running in the General)--a guy in favor of getting back to something Trump doesn't know, and that Hillary would use for asswipe.
@Smokin Joe
No,you voted for either a Trump or a Clinton presidency,and now have to lie to yourself to be able to sleep at night.
What this country needs at this point in a political,if not an actual,revolution to destroy the power of the inbred in office bunch. I see Trump as POSSIBLY a good start because he DID take on the establishment anti-freedom/anti-Constitutional powers that be,and weakened them. Time will tell on if he take the ball and runs with it,or fumbles the ball and loses. The one thing we DO know is a political outsider who had never held elective office in his life will soon be the President of the United States despite the best efforts of the DNC and the GOP and their Party People to stop him.
It ain't the end of the road,but it sure is a good first necessary step to convince the voting public that they really do NOT have to vote for the favored Party Candidates.
-
"If Trump can come in from out of the blue and take over the most important job/position in the country,how safe are THEIR jobs?"
You hit the nail on the head with this post. Not only did Trump ignore all the rules, political customs, political culture, and historical pathways to the presidency, he laughed at them and did it his way. For the most part he self funded and now literally owes none of the career politicians a damn thing. He has made many of them irrelevant and greatly diminished their power.
A politician in DC has power via the favors they can call in and the leverage they have on others. Trump has take that away from all of them as it applies to the presidency. He has taken most of their power away and the only way they can get any of it back is by kissing his butt and supporting him.
That is the politicians.
The media is just in a hysterical position from my point of view. Trump does not need any of the main stream media networks to gain publicity for himself, his views, or his presidency. He is about a half a click from making them obsolete, totally not necessary, and unwatched. I actually listened to a discussion by the media talking heads about how they should control what they say about his presidency as a leverage move. This indicates that it is themselves that they find important and not the office of the presidency.
The media got busted, in real time and publicly telling lie after lie about Trump and withholding negative stories, true/proven stories, about Hillary. They got busted and cannot avoid this proven knowledge. They are now finding out that they are not indispensible or nearly as important or powerful as they thought they were.
With a single click on his phone, President Trump will leave them totally out of the loop and publish exactly what he wants to on the social media.
If the Mainstream Media is left out of the loop they will sell a lot less ad space and the money machine that they manipulate begins to crash. The Billions of dollars that the MSM generate every year is now at risk.
Trump has done something that no other politician or citizen has ever done. President Trump has taken power and control away from the fat cat power hungry career politicians and the liars that make up and manipulate the main stream media propaganda.
Because of these events the democrats are currently making themselves look like juvenile, out of control, irrational, and drama seeking STUPID IDIOTS!!!!!
The dems are still publicly chasing unicorns and spreading conspiracy theories at light speed trying to delegitimize President Trump and his election.
The reason they are doing this is because the democrats depend on the main stream media, the lies they spread on demand, and the corrupt career politicians to maintain their power.
That power is now greatly diminished.
In winning the Presidential election in the manner he did, Trump just destroyed the democratic power base and they are in full radicalize panic mode.
Welcome to the Democrat reality of absolute irrational panic as they realize the truth of their political power castration.
-
"If Trump can come in from out of the blue and take over the most important job/position in the country,how safe are THEIR jobs?"
snip
The dems are still publicly chasing unicorns and spreading conspiracy theories at light speed trying to delegitimize President Trump and his election.
The reason they are doing this is because the democrats depend on the main stream media, the lies they spread on demand, and the corrupt career politicians to maintain their power.
That power is now greatly diminished.
In winning the Presidential election in the manner he did, Trump just destroyed the democratic power base and they are in full radicalize panic mode.
Welcome to the Democrat reality of absolute irrational panic as they realize the truth of their political power castration.
Fully agreed. They are in denial. The Russian troll thing, is from episode #17 of "How, oh how, can we stop or weaken Trump?"
What you say about the democrats applies to many Republicans as well. McCain and Graham are obviously pushing the Russian troll idea.
-
@Smokin Joe
No,you voted for either a Trump or a Clinton presidency,and now have to lie to yourself to be able to sleep at night.
What this country needs at this point in a political,if not an actual,revolution to destroy the power of the inbred in office bunch. I see Trump as POSSIBLY a good start because he DID take on the establishment anti-freedom/anti-Constitutional powers that be,and weakened them. Time will tell on if he take the ball and runs with it,or fumbles the ball and loses. The one thing we DO know is a political outsider who had never held elective office in his life will soon be the President of the United States despite the best efforts of the DNC and the GOP and their Party People to stop him.
It ain't the end of the road,but it sure is a good first necessary step to convince the voting public that they really do NOT have to vote for the favored Party Candidates.
:silly:
You can't wrap your pointy head around the idea that "none of the above" was indeed a valid vote--or that 10% of the people who even dragged their pissed-off selves down to vote did so to vote for NEITHER Trump nor Hillary.
You are the one who can't comprehend. I sleep well at night knowing who I voted for and why. You are the one trying to project your thought pattern on everyone else, and that dog won't hunt.
As is on display daily, you demonstrate you don't know sh*t, Svengali. Give up the mind reading act and try climate science.
-
:silly:
You can't wrap your pointy head around the idea that "none of the above" was indeed a valid vote--or that 10% of the people who even dragged their pissed-off selves down to vote did so to vote for NEITHER Trump nor Hillary.
You are the one who can't comprehend. I sleep well at night knowing who I voted for and why. You are the one trying to project your thought pattern on everyone else, and that dog won't hunt.
As is on display daily, you demonstrate you don't know sh*t, Svengali. Give up the mind reading act and try climate science.
@Smokin Joe
Well,bubba,I ain't the one that voted for Santa.
-
@Smokin Joe
Well,bubba,I ain't the one that voted for Santa.
Coal for you, then!
-
Coal for you, then!
@Smokin Joe
Right now I could use it.
-
@Smokin Joe
Well,bubba,I ain't the one that voted for Santa.
All due respect Joe, (and that is great) it seems to me that it is you who do not seem to be willing to grant that the transcendent reality is that voting is at it's core and central nature not rightly an exercise in manifesting moral conscience.
Voting is rather intended to be primarily an exercise in strategic placement of power.
What the anti-Trump vote faction does in virtually all of these justifications posthaste, is employ a fairly common debate/trial law strategery (sic) which is to enlarge a very simple issue until it encompasses room for the insertion of a complex rationalization.
The rationalization is designed to satisfy an emotional need. In trail law, it is to satisfy the need for the jury to feel good about accepting a point and in debate or discussion (whether internal or conversational) to feel good about promoting an opinion. In this case it is making one's self feel better posthaste about doing something that part of the principle's mind and heart knows may not have been entirely justifiable from a moral perspective.
The fact is that we instinctively associate anything that we do which makes us feel better as being morally valid. It's right because it "clicks" emotionally when we do it. The more intense the positive feeling the more we tend to feel that the action was morally correct.
The objective test of moral validity is really not how great something makes us feel, (The German SS probably felt just great about forcing innocent people into gas chambers) but in whether a consistent rational thesis can be elucidated which supports an action. So far, though there have been some noble efforts by many of our fine GOPBR posters in that direction, I have not personally read anything that even comes close to success.
The naked, ugly truth of this is clear because everyone who talks about why they voted FOR Trump also talk mostly about the effect their vote had on the real external world (effects), while everyone who justifies their vote against Trump(!) talk about their feelings (internal affects) or at best, strenuously hypothetical, speculative, conjecture-based effects which may or may not be manifest.
Poetry, literature, dance, music and painting are about celebrating feelings. Voting is about warfare and achieving victory.
I do not think less of people for voting against Trump and I don't really know of a consistent moral argument which supports that attitude - those who voted against Trump had a moral and legal right to do that. What I take exception to is how some who voted against Trump try to pretend (especially to themselves) that their action had any major focus except making themselves feel better emotionally because clearly (at least to me and I think most other Trump supporters) it arguably did not.
The nature of the debate which has ensued about this election centers around that simple fact. Either the vote against Trump had significance other than how it made the people who did it feel or it did not. It seems to me that no amount of argument pro or con to that position will ever be effective because the judgment of whether or not something has "significance" has been enlarged into philosophical debates, which by definition have no conclusive, absolute answers.
So I prefer to leave it at the fact that I still respect people who voted against Trump, though many of these same people say that they do not respect me and those like me who did vote for him. The reason I respect people who voted against Trump is the same reason I respect some people who voted for Hill-O-Lies (or some other leftist swine). My respect for them has to do with the totality of their existence as U.S. citizens or permanent residents. I do not define people solely by their political perspective but by the larger effects of their overt behavior (what they do when they are not voting, which consists of about 99.99999% of the rest of their lives).
-
That reminds me...what's the over/under on the date John McCain first stabs Trump in the back on a close vote?
I'd say the odds are in the 100% range but that's just me!
-
All due respect Joe, (and that is great) it you who do not seem to grasp the reality that voting is not an exercise in manifesting moral conscience. It is an exercise in strategic placement of power. What you are doing is enlarging a very simple issue until it encompasses room for you to insert a rationalization to satisfy your emotional need to feel good about doing something that part of you knows may not have been entire justifiable.
The fact is that many people instinctively associate anything that they do which makes them feel better as being morally valid. The test of moral validity is in whether a consistent rational thesis can be elucidated which supports a moral judgment in favor of the purport. So far, though there have been some noble efforts by many of our fine GOPBR posters I have not personally read anything that even comes close.
The naked, ugly truth of this is clear because everyone who talks about why they voted for Trump also talk about the effect their vote had on the real external world (effects), while everyone who justifies their vote against Trump(!) talk about their feelings (affects).
Poetry, literature, dance, music and painting are about feelings. Voting is about warfare and achieving victory.
@Smokin Joe @LateForLunch
DAYUM! I sure wish *I* had written that!
-
@LateForLunch
...while everyone who justifies their vote against Trump(!) talk about their feelings (affects).
Patently untrue! I didn't vote for Trump based on all of the historical facts and evidence before me and have never mentioned my feelings about it ever!
-
@LateForLunch
Patently untrue! I didn't vote for Trump based on all of the historical facts and evidence before me and have never mentioned my feelings about it ever!
You are the exception. You also didn't mention any sort of external effect upon the world achieved by your protest non-vote - least of all how refusing to support Trump generated any sort of significant outcome for anyone but yourself or those who felt as you did. So in a sense, you don't need to actually state it because it is obvious on its face that you (or anyone else) only ever does anything because it feels better than doing the opposite.
I would be interested to hear any morally consistent opinion which establishes any tangible effect upon the real world generated by refusing to vote for what was arguably (and apparently more clearly every day) the most conservative candidate who could win.
There is a positive point in that regard that I have thought of, but I have not seen anyone make it yet on any of the anti-Trump vote posts. Maybe you will be the first and if you are, I will agree with you wholeheartedly, though it does not attain the level of a superior point, (obviously, or I would have not voted for Trump).
-
@LateForLunch
Patently untrue! I didn't vote for Trump based on all of the historical facts and evidence before me and have never mentioned my feelings about it ever!
@Bigun
That means you either voted for Bubbette! or you didn't vote for a presidential candidate because you understood that either Bubbette! or Trump WAS going to be the next President and you wanted neither.
Not voting because you wanted neither is an acceptable choice. Voting for someone other than Trump or Bubbette! was nothing but delusional. The only "message" that would send was the "I am divorced from reality and can be ignored" message.
-
@Bigun
That means you either voted for Bubbette! or you didn't vote for a presidential candidate because you understood that either Bubbette! or Trump WAS going to be the next President and you wanted neither.
Not voting because you wanted neither is an acceptable choice. Voting for someone other than Trump or Bubbette! was nothing but delusional. The only "message" that would send was the "I am divorced from reality and can be ignored" message.
You are entitled to your opinions! I don't share them!
-
I do not think less of people for voting against Trump and I don't really know of a consistent moral argument which supports that attitude - those who voted against Trump had a moral and legal right to do that. What I take exception to is how some who voted against Trump try to pretend (especially to themselves) that their action had any major focus except making themselves feel better emotionally because clearly (at least to me and I think most other Trump supporters) it arguably did not.
The nature of the debate which has ensued about this election centers around that simple fact. Either the vote against Trump had significance other than how it made the people who did it feel or it did not. It seems to me that no amount of argument pro or con to that position will ever be effective because the judgment of whether or not something has "significance" has been enlarged into philosophical debates, which by definition have no conclusive, absolute answers.
So I prefer to leave it at the fact that I still respect people who voted against Trump, though many of these same people say that they do not respect me and those like me who did vote for him. The reason I respect people who voted against Trump is the same reason I respect some people who voted for Hill-O-Lies (or some other leftist swine). My respect for them has to do with the totality of their existence as U.S. citizens or permanent residents. I do not define people solely by their political perspective but by the larger effects of their overt behavior (what they do when they are not voting, which consists of about 99.99999% of the rest of their lives).
Well said
:beer:
-
You are entitled to your opinions! I don't share them!
hah hah I have not the slightest doubt that you are a terrific person and that if we met on the street I would gladly call you friend! That being said, I might also say that you have a knack for stating the obvious.
BTW, I wholly and absolutely agree with your avatar's message. The IRS is unnecessary. The roughly $360 billion we spend on compliance costs associated with filing taxes every year in the USA is an ongoing crime against the Founders and common sense. Those financial resources could be much better allocated to other far-more constructive things.
-
hah hah I have not the slightest doubt that you are a terrific person and that if we met on the street I would gladly call you friend! That being said, I might also say that you have a knack for stating the obvious.
BTW, I wholly and absolutely agree with your avatar's message. The IRS is unnecessary. The roughly $360 billion we spend on compliance costs associated with filing taxes every year in the USA is an ongoing crime against the Founders and common sense. Those financial resources could be much better allocated to other far-more constructive things.
888high58888 :beer:
I learned a lot from an old PHD. Chem. E friend who used to say, when he tired of arguing with me, "You are probably right!"
-
All right @LateForLunch, you fail to realize something here. The transcendent reality is that The Constitution is at it's core and central nature rightly an exercise in manifesting moral conscience.
That little dissertation up thread would not be possible if someone hadn't made a moral decision and stuck with it. So there. :tongue2:
@Smokin Joe @sneakypete
-
Poetry, literature, dance, music and painting are about celebrating feelings. Voting is about warfare and achieving victory.
Precisely. MAGA! TRUMP!!!TRUMP!!!TRUMP!!!! (Want a link to HarleyLady's songs?)
Perhaps the most emotionally saturated candidate I have seen since, well....Obama.
You lose--we all do.
That isn't saying that some things might not be done which need to be done, that the harm to this Republic might rolled back some, that Trump might not, for whatever reason be a good president.
But to deny the emotional ballyhoo that accompanied his candidacy would be to ignore the vitriol that drove people off websites and over which incredible rancor (and even some violence) has ensued.
If you can tell me that Trump's supporters weren't played, anger and emotion, or fear of Hillary, all the way, I will tell you to examine your own motives before you dare go poking at mine.
It was not without deliberation that I chose to vote for the candidate I felt was most likely to actually honor the Constitution of the United States, even though I had no hope aside from some major event likely to make history, that the candidate I voted for would win. I did not get to vote in the Primary for POTUS, because of the machinations of the State and National GOP--we had no primary to select a presidential candidate.
(That did make me a tad emotional. I am no longer a Republican after that crap).
But the candidate I selected was one who actually knows the document, who can apply originalist thought to that same Constitution. I find it sad (yeah, there is the remaining sum total of emotion) that an insufficient number of others realized that the supreme law of the land is more likely to be upheld by someone who knows and understands it than someone who doesn't know how many articles are in it, and who has all the signs of seeing it as another obstacle to be surmounted. I also like the idea of a candidate who knows both Corinthians.
Both major party candidates, one breaking, the other 'bending' the law, would readily do so if they felt the ends justified the means.
Ours is a system of government we may retain as long as we are a moral people. We won't. We aren't. And while politics ain't beanbag, it is only a war in that it is a war of ideas. The bloodshed will come later, because the correct ideas, the ideas on which this Republic was founded have not prevailed.
You may act as sanctimonious as you want, but do not pretend to know me or my motivations. You don't.
-
:silly:
You can't wrap your pointy head around the idea that "none of the above" was indeed a valid vote--or that 10% of the people who even dragged their pissed-off selves down to vote did so to vote for NEITHER Trump nor Hillary.
Since the third party offerings were, really, little enough, and since the two major parties and
their (actual, alleged, or transient) voters saddled us with a race, really, between Caligula
and Queen Athaliah, I thanked God for my state having "None of These Candidates" as a
presidential ballot option. And, that casting a vote whichever way one chose to cast it did
not remove his or her right to hold the winner's feet to the fire in however small a fashion
available.
The election of a president does not carry an automatic immunity from critique, regard-
less of whether an incoming president does or doesn't have a "record" (those who think
the current president elect has no known "record," regardless of whether he has held public
office in the past, should think again---hard), and such critique is not an automatic exposure
of a critic's "hatred."
-
hah hah hah Do you nice folks feel better now that you have gotten all of that out of your systems? Since feelings are all that you seem to really care about, I'm guessing that you do.
I consider you all to be still good people, though I can't say that I have any confidence that you view me or people like me in the same way. I do not hate anyone for disliking or voting against our new president - but I would not trust any of you in a political sense, any further than I could loft a 1000 pound pile of cow pucky.
DJT and Conway were 1000% correct to run a campaign which discarded the attempt to corral doctrinaire self-described "conservatives" (made content in political lethargy by their own self-adoring imaginary sense of ideological "purity") for the far-less ideological, far-more practical and down-to-Earth non-aligned (independent) voters. Some people are not open to rational argument because they cannot tolerate any admission of flaw or error in themselves or ideology. Selah.
There are some things in the universe which are fully, absolutely predictable. The transit of the stars in their courses through the Heavens. The inevitability of death. The levying of taxation by government on the backs of their productive constituent citizens. And now to that list, we may add the defensive, vituperation-laden rationalizations of people who feel the need to defend their decision to resign from the mainstream conservative political movement in the USA in 2016 because they got their collective feelings hurt in the primaries.
Rarely have I observed a more spectacular display of semantic sleight-of-hand, philosophical/verbal acrobatics and bald-faced, defiantly Cyclopean self-congratulation than in the copious, effusive flood of anti-Trumpster posts on this forum. Really something to see. No wonder the 'Crats thought that they were going to destroy DJT, there is no correlate traitor-faction on the left side of the political spectrum.
BTW, sorry for the long post earlier in the thread. I know that thinking deeply hurts some anti-Trumpsters in the head. Next time I promise to use pictures, hieroglyphics or an elementary-school level Power Point presentation.
-
You are entitled to your opinions! I don't share them!
@Bigun
Ok. I can live with that. If everyone suddenly started agreeing with me on everything,it would scare me more than a little.
-
hah hah hah Do you nice folks feel better now that you have gotten all of that out of your systems? Since feelings are all that you seem to really care about, I'm guessing that you do.
I consider you all to be still good people, though I can't say that I have any confidence that you view me or people like me in the same way. I do not hate anyone for disliking or voting against our new president - but I would not trust any of you in a political sense, any further than I could loft a 1000 pound pile of cow pucky.
DJT and Conway were 1000% correct to run a campaign which discarded the attempt to corral doctrinaire self-described "conservatives" (made content in political lethargy by their own self-adoring imaginary sense of ideological "purity") for the far-less ideological, far-more practical and down-to-Earth non-aligned (independent) voters. Some people are not open to rational argument because they cannot tolerate any admission of flaw or error in themselves or ideology. Selah.
There are some things in the universe which are fully, absolutely predictable. The transit of the stars in their courses through the Heavens. The inevitability of death. The levying of taxation by government on the backs of their productive constituent citizens. And now to that list, we may add the defensive, vituperation-laden rationalizations of people who feel the need to defend their decision to resign from the mainstream conservative political movement in the USA in 2016 because they got their collective feelings hurt in the primaries.
Rarely have I observed a more spectacular display of semantic sleight-of-hand, philosophical/verbal acrobatics and bald-faced, defiantly Cyclopean self-congratulation than in the copious, effusive flood of anti-Trumpster posts on this forum. Really something to see. No wonder the 'Crats thought that they were going to destroy DJT, there is no correlate traitor-faction on the left side of the political spectrum.
BTW, sorry for the long post earlier in the thread. I know that thinking deeply hurts some anti-Trumpsters in the head. Next time I promise to use pictures, hieroglyphics or an elementary-school level Power Point presentation.
You tell 'em!
-
DJT and Conway were 1000% correct to run a campaign which discarded the attempt to corral doctrinaire self-described "conservatives" (made content in political lethargy by their own self-adoring imaginary sense of ideological "purity") for the far-less ideological, far-more practical and down-to-Earth non-aligned (independent) voters. Some people are not open to rational argument because they cannot tolerate any admission of flaw or error in themselves or ideology. Selah.
snip
Rarely have I observed a more spectacular display of semantic sleight-of-hand, philosophical/verbal acrobatics and bald-faced, defiantly Cyclopean self-congratulation than in the copious, effusive flood of anti-Trumpster posts on this forum. Really something to see. No wonder the 'Crats thought that they were going to destroy DJT, there is no correlate traitor-faction on the left side of the political spectrum.
Much better to win without doctrinaire approach, than to lose with it.
-
I consider you all to be still good people, though I can't say that I have any confidence that you view me or people like me in the same way. I do not hate anyone for disliking or voting against our new president - but I would not trust any of you in a political sense, any further than I could loft a 1000 pound pile of cow pucky.
Well, you have been lofting that 'pucky' all over, so I'd say you are doing fairly well. Some people are not open to rational argument because they cannot tolerate any admission of flaw or error in themselves or ideology.
As we have observed.
The flaw isn't in me, not that I am without any flaws, but then, I wasn't running for POTUS. It is not only my Right, but my duty to choose the person whom I believe will best fill the office of POTUS. To assert that "Might makes Right", etc. is hardly something that will stand up to scrutiny. To place your trust in someone who lied their way into the nomination is no formula for success. To admit you were caught up with so many in the emotional onslaught that typified the Trump Railroad is just to admit you were carried away on the waves of desire for vengeance against all those you blame for the flaws in our country today, without accepting the responsibility for it. Those of us who would not board that train did so, not out of emotion, but the realization that those who cannot be trusted to tell the truth cannot be trusted in larger things. His entire campaign was based on the propagation of lies via "alternative media", which remains as trustworthy as a gaggle of gossips spewing vitriol.
There is a thread on this board of Trump's promises. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233460.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,233460.0.html) Let's see how he does, and where he backs water. I have great faith that those who supported him would still continue to do so if he gunned down people in Times Square, though perhaps some of the terror of Hillary and bloodthirsty fervor has subsided. Still, I do not expect those who were true blue, enthusiastic Trump supporters to ever admit him getting it wrong, and if they do, the list of excuses will doubtless rival the history of threads on this site.
There are some things in the universe which are fully, absolutely predictable. The transit of the stars in their courses through the Heavens. The inevitability of death. The levying of taxation by government on the backs of their productive constituent citizens. And now to that list, we may add the defensive, vituperation-laden rationalizations of people who feel the need to defend their decision to resign from the mainstream conservative political movement in the USA in 2016 because they got their collective feelings hurt in the primaries.
Oh. Did we hurt your widdle feewings in the primaries, even though your guy won? Those of us who are Conservative remain so. It was those who rode the train out of town who abandoned their values, not us. Nice try. To redefine Trump as Conservative is one of the great pitfalls we warned of, and there you go. Nice try, but Trump has never been Conservative. If you would assert he is, you either need to take another look, or you aren't.
Rarely have I observed a more spectacular display of semantic sleight-of-hand, philosophical/verbal acrobatics and bald-faced, defiantly Cyclopean self-congratulation than in the copious, effusive flood of anti-Trumpster posts on this forum. Really something to see. No wonder the 'Crats thought that they were going to destroy DJT, there is no correlate traitor-faction on the left side of the political spectrum.
Nor have I seen such moral gymnastics to justify supporting an incontinent prevaricator, much less hold him up as "conservative", or to claim those who supported him wholeheartedly did so out of anything but out of Conservative values, not just raving anger or tail-growing fear. I cannot be a traitor to something I have never agreed with. Nor will I cast my moral standards to the wind over an election. But never have I seen such a graceless, horse corpse flogging bunch as Trumps True Believers, and reminiscent of their continued attacks on other Republicans even after Trump won the nomination, in true GOPee style, they continue to attack those who could be allies. Now, that's something even the Democrats have mastered. Maybe that's why they lost.
-
No matter how well you articulate your position @LateForLunch, I find your thinking common.
-
No matter how well you articulate your position @LateForLunch, I find your thinking common.
Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment, as in "common sense", although that is surely not the way you intended it. No matter. I don't want to drag us any more off topic than we already are out of respect for the originator. I assume that the anti-Trump crowd will adapt to conditions and either change their attitude or not. I don't have a dog in the hunt.
I hope the people who post to defend their actions feel better and will live long and perspire.
-
Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment, as in "common sense", although that is surely not the way you intended it. No matter. I don't want to drag us any more off topic than we already are out of respect for the originator. I assume that the anti-Trump crowd will adapt to conditions and either change their attitude or not. I don't have a dog in the hunt.
I hope the people who post to defend their actions feel better and will live long and perspire.
It isn't a statement of disrespect. I don't see anything in your argument that is new, or compelling. My philosophy is based on my 55 years of life experience. I plan on taking it to my grave-with no regret.
I have the expectation of ANY POTUS to best represent the entire nation with dignity, pride, respect, and civility. So far, trump isn't coming close to that expectation. All I see now is a sore winner carney barker.
-
It isn't a statement of disrespect. I don't see anything in your argument that is new, or compelling. My philosophy is based on my 55 years of life experience. I plan on taking it to my grave-with no regret.
I have the expectation of ANY POTUS to best represent the entire nation with dignity, pride, respect, and civility. So far, trump isn't coming close to that expectation. All I see now is a sore winner carney barker.
That's unfortunate. He says only good things about you. ^-^
If DJTs worst flaw is his verbal (and social media) behavior, I think we will all be very gratified about 100 days out. In comparison to the Eightball Obama's cross-eyed waltzing naked through the fields of Marxist lunacy, and Bush 43 (who seemed incapable of defending himself verbally and had that "deer-in-the-headlights" stare plastered on his face most of the time) Trump is the Great Communicator. The public wants a boxing match to some extent from politics, and that is what the president-elect gave them in the campaign. It is distasteful to have a president who wields words as munitions more than as tools of communication but times change. Sometimes they change for the worse.
One may either adapt to them or be overwhelmed by them. Bush 43 seemed to be in the latter category. His inability to take his case directly to the people on matters of policy all but crippled the Republican party. So if we are grading on a curve... As you (and I think most wise people), I am going to reserve judgment on the DJT administration until I see some more overt behavior.
'Glad you are feeling well. I hope that you and everyone on the forum has a great morning and a great week! Even those who suspect that I am uh, not O.K.!
-
Thanks for the treatise.
People need to understand - bureaucracies have certain universal traits... they exist for their own sakes, they are inclined on their own to grow and grow, they are cold blooded and brutal, etc.
The government is a bureaucracy that projects power from the barrel of a gun. And as you point out, politicians are its high priests.
At best its a necessary evil requiring voters to tightly control it. Because unchecked it will lead us into slavery.
What we don't know now is will Trump lead from the outside, or will he become co-opted by it.
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy": In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely
-
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy": In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely
Right on! It has always been so and always will be so!