149
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 09:33 pm
Quote:
Clinton: If Republicans pass ObamaCare repeal, 'they're the death party'

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton dubbed the GOP "the death party" on Friday.

She blasted Republicans in a tweet over the Senate GOP's recently unveiled bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare. “Forget death panels,” Clinton tweeted. “If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the death party.


This apocalyptic hyperbole plays well with cheese-eaters, no doubt. But does it "rope in" a single independent or republican recruit? I don't think so. It probably helps drive some Democrats into becoming independents. But Clinton (and her party) is notorious for misreading the American public, so what else is new, eh?
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 09:56 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

@rev

from Monday

blatham wrote:
I'm starting a renovation job today



Oh my gosh! Can you imagine what his "ignored posts" count will be?! It will be STAGGERING!
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 09:58 pm
https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19366619_1435396946527287_9190169087346247529_n.jpg?oh=60ff17764593d6433c3a527451a9e8af&oe=59E87E45
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 10:02 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Clinton: If Republicans pass ObamaCare repeal, 'they're the death party'

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton dubbed the GOP "the death party" on Friday.


Says the larcenous criminal who simply pocketed $1 billion meant to aid victims of catastrophe in the poorest nation within our hemisphere (Haiti). You suppose any of the government cheese eating shit4brains mental defectives who voted for that abomination actually don't believe that the lack of that billion dollars caused any negative consequences for the health and welfare of any of those poor people?
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 10:05 pm
https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19260268_10213584082621526_1935841759599796445_n.jpg?oh=0413c454fda547eea6890774910ab10e&oe=59D3165F
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 10:24 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Says the larcenous criminal who simply pocketed $1 billion meant to aid victims of catastrophe in the poorest nation within our hemisphere (Haiti). You suppose any of the government cheese eating shit4brains mental defectives who voted for that abomination actually don't believe that the lack of that billion dollars caused any negative consequences for the health and welfare of any of those poor people?


Yeah, it's really fascinating the Clinton voters choose to attack Trump on the grounds that he's supposedly a dishonest crook. Why in the world would that matter to them?

Speaking of Haiti, isn't that the country where Hillary gave strong support to keeping the minimum wage there at 13 cents an hour?

Edit: My bad, it was 24 cents an hour:

Quote:
Hillary Clinton colluded with big business to maintain slave wages for workers in one of the world’s poorest countries..."In 2009, while Bill Clinton was setting up one of the family’s shell companies in New York, in that same year Hillary Clinton was at the State Department working with U.S. corporations to pressure Haiti not to raise the minimum wage to 61 cents an hour from 24 cents," Camp said April 17. "Seriously."


http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/apr/21/lee-camp/did-hillary-clintons-state-department-help-suppres/

Ya gotta give them proles just enough to survive and keep them down. Any more than that, and they would start to get uppity, ya know?
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 10:38 pm
@layman,
Rush Limbaugh and Dinesh DeSousa have said pretty much the same thing about the two Clintons. DeSousa said that at the end of the day you could think whatever you want to about Bork Obunga but the guy was basically an ideologue more than just an outright gangster, while the two Clintons were much more like Bonnie and Clyde with no basis in idiology at all and were generally focused simply on the next score to take down. Limbaugh had said the same thing as early on as the mid-90s, noting that the Clintons had no core ideology or system of beliefs and were simply looking out for number one.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 10:47 pm
@layman,
Dumb question here, could you stand in front of a mirror and say something like

Quote:
Evil Russians hacked the poor Hildebeest out of the presidency!!


And keep your face straight?? I couldn't do that and I can't picture any of the people I associate with doing that and, generally, I would assume that anybody who could do that was dealing with an IQ below the level which you normally associate with dogs and cats, but..

If you get on Twitter and simply do a search on the name Putin, that's virtually all you see, mainly government cheese eating **** for brain snowflakes parroting Washington Post bullshit on the topic.

I generally view twitter as a misuse of technology but for business reasons am having to become familiar with it. My normal thinking would be that anybody who cannot express thoughts in more than 140 characters, should not be on the Internet and, not surprisingly, the place does appear to be more of a cesspool than anything I have seen recently. The world's ultimate misuse of technology, of course, remains the 410gauge shotgun; the only possible use for that would be killing mice and rats and for what you would pay for a good one, you could buy 80 or hundred cats...
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2017 11:31 pm
@gungasnake,
Yeah, it is just stupid, or else willfully self-deceptive, to accept far-fetched claims with no evidence. It's (very remotely) possible that Trump hacked the election, with russian help, but, in that sense anything (and everything) is "possible."

But, the thing is, there is nothing illegal about "colluding" with a foreign country, or anyone else, to disseminate a political message, to begin with, so long as it's done by legal means. The cheese-eaters are trying to convince people that it's inherently illegal. It aint.

All this **** will just backfire on them, bigtime, and everybody but themselves will see them for the fools that they are. I thinks that's already happened, actually. Trying to push "obstruction of justice," now that the collusion allegation has gone to hell, won't make them look better. They will only be seen as even more "misguided" (to use a polite term for it).
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 12:03 am
@layman,
Quote:
But, the thing is, there is nothing illegal about "colluding" with a foreign country, or anyone else, to disseminate a political message, to begin with, so long as it's done by legal means.


All this talk about "stopping" foreign actors from "influencing" our elections is futile. Anybody, anywhere in the world, can, for example, post a "fake news" story or a critical comment about a political candidate on the internet. You can't stop that, unless maybe you outlaw the internet.

It is Americans themselves, not congress, not counter-cyber war, and not "laws," who have to "solve" this problem. They need to be more critical about the stories/information/opinions they accept at face value. This goes TRIPLE for the domestic MSM--forgot what Pravda might say.

Likewise, Americans themselves have the greatest power to insure the "integrity" of the election process. Voter fraud, of various types, is rampant in this country, but very little, almost nothing, is done about it. It's easier to worry about the russians, I guess.

Recounts in two (of the three) states were disqualified because, on the "recount," a lot more votes were showing up. Someone was just "stuffing the ballot box" ex post facto.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 12:14 am
@layman,
When you think about it, what the hell kind of discriminatory **** is it for the government cheese eating shit4brains demopoops to claim that dead people and illegal aliens should be allowed to influence a US election (by actually voting) and that Russians shouldn't??
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 12:27 am
@gungasnake,
When I was a kid I looked in the window of the office where the county commissioners were "counting" the votes. They had the blinds closed and the curtains drawn, but I found a crack I could see through.

There were 3-4 guys taking ballots out of the box. They all had pencils in their hands. They would look at a ballot, and if they didn't like it, they would start erasing and then pencil in the vote they wanted.

It's the same **** now, it's just that the methods they use are more sophisticated.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 02:46 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn wrote:
Otherwise what is the point of having a party?

'What" indeed. I go a step further than oralloy. Outlaw political parties altogether. Our last decent president thought the same thing.
Finn wrote:
I doubt that even House Reps who haven't found a way to grab the national spotlight have much name recognition let alone well known profiles in their districts.

Why not make the voters actually find out what the candidates think rather than just assuring them that this candidate has some political organization's imprimatur so some mouthful of pretty teeth, devoid of backbone, without an original idea "deserves" your vote?
Finn wrote:
Even if Ossoff [or any moderate Republican candidate] was sincere in his centrist rhetoric, the way a number of Blue Dog Democrats [remember the "gypsy Moth" Republicans?] were during their last successful wave, once he got to DC he would have learned that the only way a low profile, first term representative was likely to accrue power or influence is to support the Party Leadership, the people who establish the Brand

All the more reason to get rid of these crooked organizations — they should be investigated under the provisions of RICO. You'd think the hapless political hacks had pledged allegiance to some religious cult or something. How many of them would have the decency expressed by Mr. Biden?
Quote:
I accept my church's position [on abortion.] But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews...


Here's one for today from the NYT:

Howard Jacobson wrote:
LONDON — Let’s look on the bright side: The spectacle of ireful Donald Trump supporters disrupting Shakespeare in the Park’s production of “Julius Caesar” and the subsequent tweetstorm of abuse directed at any company with Shakespeare in its name prove that plays retain the power to shock and enrage. Who said the theater is all anodyne, feel-good musicals?

I didn’t see the production that turned Julius Caesar into a Donald Trump look-alike, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of the impersonation or the violence against the president that some people believe it meant to incite. But there are a few things about the nature of Shakespearean drama in general — its subtle shifts in sympathy, the shocks it administers to our prejudices, its suspension of the drives to definitive political action — that obviously weren’t apparent to protesters.

The first of these is that a play, however incendiary its plot, is a very different thing from a political speech. A speech asks us to go out and do, or at least to go away and believe; a play by Shakespeare moves through time, measures action against motive and shows us consequence. We might enter the theater in rash spirits, but we leave it consumed by thought.
Mr. Trump never, in so many words, promoted the assassination of Hillary Clinton when addressing an election rally about the likely effect of her tinkering with the gun laws, but he avoided incitement only by making a sort of comic drama of his words — imagining what others might think or do, playing with future and conditional tenses, painting himself as innocent of any such intention himself. This wasn’t Shakespeare, but it was a departure from the usual blunt declamations of the “Lock her up!” variety. Deep down in Mr. Trump’s ungrammatical subconscious, some ancient understanding of the nature of dramaturgical, as opposed to oratorical, discourse briefly stirred. No, he had not called for Mrs. Clinton to be shot.

Plays don’t tell you what to think, let alone how to act. A good play won’t even tell you what the playwright thinks. What did Shakespeare believe? We don’t know. Meaning emerges, in a drama, suspensefully, out of the interplay of forces, from the collision of voices. There is no such thing, in art, as non-contingent truth.

That Trumpists don’t recognize this process is not surprising. Mr. Trump’s appeal is to those who think truth comes in a capsule. But their rage at the depiction of the president as the soon-to-be-assassinated Caesar is encouraging to the satirist. Satire is less subtle than Shakespearean drama. It lowers its head and charges. The questions always asked of it — will it do any good, will it change minds, will it even be noticed by the people satirized? — are hereby answered. Yes, no and yes.

Vexation is its own reward. It is consoling to see how thin-skinned the partisans of Mr. Trump are. But in truth, we’ve always known this about people of an absolutist bent. Just before the war, Adolf Hitler tried diplomatic means to get the British cartoonist David Low barred from drawing cartoons of the Führer. It has even been suggested that Mr. Low’s name was on a list of people to be killed when the Nazis occupied Britain.

Communism’s failure of humor is the subject of Milan Kundera’s first novel, “The Joke.” For writing the words “Optimism is the opium of mankind! A healthy spirit stinks of stupidity! Long live Trotsky!” on the back of a postcard to a girlfriend, Ludvik Jahn is expelled from the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and sent to work in the mines.

The more monocratic the regime, the less it can bear criticism. And of all criticism, satire — with its single ambition of ridiculing vanity and delusion — is the most potent.

This can be only because the boastful are thin-skinned and the intolerant are forever looking over their shoulders. Mr. Trump himself is visibly easy to wound. Should this be a reason to hold back? “Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?” the great satirist Alexander Pope asked. The question was rhetorical. Wounding the vainglorious is a pleasing pastime in itself and contributes to their demoralization. Fire enough salvos of comedy and their solemn edifices start to crumble. It might be a slow process, but it is at least the beginning.

Derision is a societal necessity. In an age of conformity and populist hysteria, it creates a climate of skepticism and distrust of authority. If mercy droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven, derision spurts up as though from a pantomime geyser, drenching the braggart and the fool in the foulest ordures.
layman
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 04:45 am
@hightor,
Well, that was one pretentious crock of ****, which completely ignores the reasons the objectors were protesting.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 05:01 am
@layman,
Hahahahaaaa!

Kind of thin-skinned are we?

Quote:
Vexation is its own reward.


Thanks, cheese-face, you made my day!
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 05:29 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The world's ultimate misuse of technology, of course, remains the 410gauge shotgun; the only possible use for that would be killing mice and rats and for what you would pay for a good one, you could buy 80 or hundred cats...


So we should shoot small game with no 2 12 gage? You continually reinforce my opinions of how we no longer demand excellence in anything (even in small game hunting).

farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 05:29 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The world's ultimate misuse of technology, of course, remains the 410gauge shotgun; the only possible use for that would be killing mice and rats and for what you would pay for a good one, you could buy 80 or hundred cats...


So we should shoot small game with no 2 12 gage? You continually reinforce my opinions of how we no longer demand excellence in anything (even in small game hunting).

layman
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 05:38 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Hahahahaaaa!

Kind of thin-skinned are we?

Quote:
Vexation is its own reward.


Thanks, cheese-face, you made my day!


Heh. You want to presume you have "vexed" me due to my "thin-skin?" Typical delusions of grandeur, eh?

Nice try, cheese-eater.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 07:07 am
@ehBeth,
To the degree that Hitchens carried forward the "atheist cause" in his cultural sphere, he might have been useful at some point. But he was a godsend to the Bushists at the end of his life, and a troskist parrot at the beginning...
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Jun, 2017 08:27 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Misuse of technology. The most likely outcome of taking any kind of a rifle shot at a target two miles away is to warn the target that he has a problem. Two mile shots are what artillery is for.



As a formerly trained infantry mortarman / forward observer (11C) I would have to agree.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.32 seconds on 08/21/2019 at 07:37:02