40
   

How will Trump handle losing the election?

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 04:39 pm
@fbaezer,
When Trump said that... I heard bad hambre. I thought he was just thinking about taco trucks.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 04:51 pm
If I may go off topic, Woody Allen and William F Buckley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNErWi_lTig
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 04:54 pm
@blatham,
I'm an old Fallows reader, but stopped when I stopped most magazine reading. I'm presuming you don't mean some of those descriptive negatives about him, though as usual, we all get to disagree. In my case, he knew more, natch.

Thing is, people on a2k, a city of us fools marching or dancing, tapping or stomping, sometimes do learn and mildly change a point of view - and when we talk to others in real life, may spread our thinking. Regional thought doesn't just show up from the smartest authors with serious research credits.
The spread matters.

Which is what worries me about Trump... the aftermath.



Edit - It's not so much Fallows I read, as Latham/the Harper's guy.
I may have to adjust my takes.
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 05:25 pm
er, Lewis H. Lapham.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  6  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 06:12 pm
L-o-o-v-ve this New Yorker cartoon by Benjamin Schwartz

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/14695353_1359868380705103_1640905789395665332_n.jpg?oh=36f76f1d20a6c3b86914872d38bcc101&oe=58AA18A6
reasoning logic
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 06:14 pm
@snood,
Not feeling to good about Hitlary today? Rolling Eyes
snood
 
  8  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 06:20 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Not feeling to good about Hitlary today? Rolling Eyes


Don't hate - congratulate!
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 06:21 pm
@ossobucotemp,
Quote:
I'm an old Fallows reader, but stopped when I stopped most magazine reading.

He was in China for a fair while. Returned about a year or so ago, if I recall correctly

And yes, Lapham is an amazing fellow. I haven't followed him in his new post-Harpers location but that's just lack of time.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 06:22 pm
@snood,
Quote:

Don't hate - congratulate!


After reading all of her leaked emails and study your behavior I came to this same conclusion before I asked you the question. Shocked not
Blickers
 
  5  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 06:42 pm
@blatham,
Quote blatham:
Quote:
James Fallows, who has been doing great work forever, now has a blog at the Atlantic. Recently, because he's really smart, he enjoined Jane Goodall to make observations on Donald Trump's behaviors. From his post...
“In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”


Fallows should know a lot about non-Sapien primate behavior. He took an ancestry test and he scored 5% Neanderthal, nearly the twice the amount as most non-Africans have, (Africans and recent African heritage folks have little to none). So Fallows is speaking from experience here.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  5  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:00 pm
@reasoning logic,
The emails were not leaked, they were stolen by someone (the United States Intelligence orgs. have said they were stolen by the Russians) and no one knows if the emails are accurate. Even Marco Rubio is warning against embracing the wikileaks dumps as factual, because this time it's against them (democrats) but the next time it could be us (republican)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:33 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
When you think about it, that is such an irresponsible pledge given the present court vacancy and the ages of some of the judges on the court now. There should be a new law about how long Senators can hold up court vacancies because if McCain keeps his pledge, four years plus the months now since Scalia died is too long to have a Supreme court vacancy.

We don't even know that he meant it the way the Democrats are construing it.

But if he did mean it that way, it would be a very responsible thing for the Republicans to do.

Hillary means to pack the Supreme Court full of justices who will allow the Second Amendment to be violated if she is elected. If the Republicans can manage to block all of her nominees under such a circumstance, that will be a very good thing for America.
snood
 
  5  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:43 pm
@oralloy,
I got no problem with it, if they let the process take its natural course - let the SCOTUS nominees come before them for an up-or-down vote and vote them down the right way. None of this backroom, shut-down-the-government and refuse to do the business they were elected to do. It's chickenshit.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:45 pm
@ehBeth,
I really miss Abuzz.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:50 pm
@farmerman,
You are totally right about many people posting opinion pieces as fact on these sites. And when pointed out to them they are not fact but opinion they claim one is attacking them. Evidently in their minds opinion becomes fact if it agrees with their opinions.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 08:39 pm
@snood,
That's true. As long as the Republicans refuse to even vote on the Supreme Court nominee, they are not following the Constitution.
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 09:19 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Trump cant lose. Hes like a bank, too 'uge to fail.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2016 01:08 am
@Krumple,
Continuously shooting himself in the dick seems to not be a great career move. He is basically clueless. We cant have a guy negotiating with Russia or China who is so damn volatile and sociopathic.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2016 02:09 am
@snood,
snood wrote:
I got no problem with it, if they let the process take its natural course - let the SCOTUS nominees come before them for an up-or-down vote and vote them down the right way. None of this backroom, shut-down-the-government and refuse to do the business they were elected to do. It's chickenshit.

I would agree if they brought back the filibuster so that a nominee needs 60 votes for approval (and maybe also penalized the people who did away with it, to make sure that no one ever removes it again).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2016 02:11 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
That's true. As long as the Republicans refuse to even vote on the Supreme Court nominee, they are not following the Constitution.

I don't see the Constitutional violation. But regardless, the Democrats are trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will maliciously allow the Second Amendment to be violated.

If the Republicans can put a stop to that, they will be heroes to America forever.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 08:38:38