192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 07:53 am
Just saw this item.
Quote:
On Friday, speaking to camera, Scarborough said: “Mica asked the president-elect while we had the opportunity … to clarify the tweet yesterday regarding the nuclear arsenal. And the president-elect told you what?”

“‘Let it be an arms race’,”
Brzezinski said. “‘We will outmatch them at every pass.’”
LINK
Super genius at work.
revelette1
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 07:58 am
@blatham,
We must be the early birds. I just saw it too. Maybe they will collaborate.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 08:09 am
0bama (never mistaken for a genius) is working extra hard to further weaken this country by ending a program once used to track mostly Arab and Muslim men.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0XVJ9yXAAAGzaq.jpg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 08:12 am
@revelette1,
Quote:
Maybe they will collaborate.

Lots of money to be made by them and friends.

But both of them play the same sort of game. They put on a show. And if some foreign leader says something that sounds challenging then Trump, being Trump, has to do the alpha male response and blow a big cloud of smoke out of his...that place where smoke ought not to be coming from. He's a shallow, stupid and dangerous lunatic.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 08:16 am
Some of you will have noted the earlier reporting on the Trump PR people having serious difficulty finding any artists who will agree to perform around Trump's inauguration. So of course we get to this now...
Quote:
President-elect Donald Trump claims he doesn’t want celebrities at his inauguration, tweeting Thursday night that he wants “the people” to intend the event instead.

“The so-called "A" list celebrities are all wanting tixs to the inauguration, but look what they did for Hillary, NOTHING. I want the PEOPLE!” he tweeted.

His tweet appears to be a defense against claims that the president-elect can’t book notable talent for his inauguration in January. In November, Elton John’s publicist said that the singer won’t perform after a Trump adviser said he would. And earlier this week, tenor Andrea Bocelli, who was reported to be in the inauguration line-up, stated he won’t be performing at the event. The Presidential Inauguration Committee chair, however, said that Trump turned down Bocelli's tentative offer to sing.

So far, 16-year-old “America’s Got Talent” star Jackie Evancho is the only solo performer confirmed to be performing at the inauguration. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Radio City Rockettes are also slated to perform.
Image and presentation are everything. Honesty is for losers.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 08:47 am
Jeff Sessions' dishonesty in the questionnaire provided for confirmation hearing greater than previously known
Quote:
In Sessions’ questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee, he listed nine appearances collectively on Breitbart’s audio platforms, including Breitbart Sirius XM Radio and Breitbart Daily Radio Show, and four print interviews on Breitbart’s website.

But Right Wing Watch found nine additional radio interviews and three print interviews Sessions had given the publication since 2013 alone, along with a “handful” of op-eds Sessions had written for the site, that weren't listed on the questionnaire.
so unusual for this crowd to be other than honest
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 08:56 am

A pair of liberal pricks stalk & harass the daughter of our next president at an airport, and on a plane.

Tolerant liberals are as rare as moderate muslims.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 09:10 am
If you read anything today, read this.

Quote:
In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former five-star general and the Supreme Allied Commander in the Second World War, inaugurated the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. “I should like to assure you, my Islamic friends, that, under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion,” Eisenhower said. “Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience. This concept is indeed a part of America, and without that concept we would be something else than what we are. . . . I am convinced that our common goals are both right and promising.”

Every President since then—including Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage drama, Ronald Reagan after the Marine-barracks bombing in Lebanon, George H. W. Bush during the Gulf War, and his son after the September 11th attacks—has reached out to the Islamic world, even as they were tough on extremism. President-elect Donald Trump, whose campaign rhetoric was repeatedly laced with xenophobic rants against an entire faith, is instead hinting at an almost primeval crusade after he takes office next month.

“I think Islam hates us,” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, in March, lumping 1.7 billion people spread across six continents into a dangerously simplistic stereotype...

In 1986, after a series of terrorist attacks by extremists in the Middle East, Ronald Reagan cautioned, “Let no one mistake this for a conflict between the Western democracies and the Arab world. Those who condone making war by cowardly attacks on unarmed third parties, including women and children, are but a tiny minority. Arab nations themselves have been forced to endure savage terrorist attacks from this minority.”
Read it all here
Recall how Rove, campaigning for a Bush second term, explicitly stated in a speech at the time that he was using a strategy of pushing the notion of Bush as "a war president". This is an old appeal to the right but Rove understood that this presentation of reality had electoral benefits.

Do not make the mistake of imagining that Trump's people don't get this. And further, do not make the error of imagining they won't push to the edge or beyond for perceived political benefits.
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 09:32 am
@blatham,
Thanks for the intro to Billy Connelly.
A bunch of us a2k people like Chicago architecture.. so that was a treat. Well, mostly.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 09:40 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0XyS0nWIAAVUMz.jpg

Tolerant liberals are as rare as moderate muslims.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 09:48 am
@ossobucotemp,
My pleasure, madam.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 09:55 am
@blatham,
I remember ithe construction of the Islamic Center, to which Blatham refers, very well. The Center is located In Washington on Massachusets Ave. just south of the high bridge over the Rock Creek gorge. My dad drove me by it on our way to his office and my school (which is also near the Capitol) most mornings. It's a beautiful structure, that was financed by Saudi Arabia - a country that permits no religious freedon whatever to non Muslims and even treats its own Shia minority rather badly - as my dad then pointed out to me. This was also the period of enormous infrastructure development by Saudia Arabia all done by U.S. firms. Our strategy then was to keep the mideast oil resources firmly aligned to the West and avaialble to our allies ( we were still energy independent then). As Ibn Saud's hold on the country was then tenuous, this strategy suited both partners quite well.

I am perplexed by this post of Blatham's, following so closely on his earlier post announcing a firm "**** you" to all religion and all religious believers. It makes his real motivations here very hard to guess. Indeed the only consistent model I can find is one involving the use of anything he can find to criticize, or cast doubt on, the ability and integrity of those he opposes politically ( that vast right wing movement conspiracy against which he imagines him self in a lonely but heroic battle.).

This also provides an excellent illustration of the banality and mindless stupidity of contemporary political correctitude. Any thinking adult knows from his own experience that life presents us with a stream of challenges which often appear to defy the values that we wish to apply in our lives. How to reward achievement without at the same time punishing (or at least excluding) failure? How to survive in a world that does indeed contain enemies and, in the case of nationa/cultural survival, those who would destroy us (as has occurred throughout himan history) .?

These things require judgment and a pragmatic ranking of the values we apply. How anyone could read history, observe contemporary events or indeed objectively examine his/her own actions in life, and not recognize this, is something that amazes me. Philosophers and religions all recognize these dilemmas as well. Human history is also replete with examples of temporary mass hysteria and apparent insanity with respect to such obviously flawed modes of thinking and acting. Examples abound from the Inqisition to the Reigns of terror that followed the French Russian/Soviet and Chinese/Mao revolutions, the "Cultural revolution" that followed there over three decades later, and many, many others. The contemporary cult of political correctitude is relatively benign in its effects so far compareed to the others cited here , but it is their equal in the mindless, shallow stupidity of its absurd doctrines and the categorical judgments of its members.

Blatham has some very agreable peresonal qualities, but he is also a prolific purveyor of this stupid bullshit on this site. He also amply demonstrates that his only discernable object is to criticize those with whom he disagrees politically (but only those in a neighboring country not his own), and that he is oblivious of the stark hypocrisy this often involves, as in the case at hand, Just what may be the personal obsessions driving all this is something I don't know: I can guess some possibilities, but I hope they are not true.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 09:55 am
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0X13DVXgAAphWL.jpg
0 Replies
 
tony5732
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 10:23 am
@blatham,
I think there might be a difference in what trump does in his business and what trump does running the United States. The man understands money, but he isn't taking office for money. He already got his.

I hope I'm right, but there is really no way to tell what he is going to do (good or bad), until he does it.
catbeasy
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 10:47 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The PC believers merely point to Blatham and Nancy Pelosi. There's not a dime's worth of difference.

Are you just refusing to respond to what I said? I said I have no control how individuals respond to any particular issue regardless of their religious/non religious orientation..I get that!

The issue here is what is more desirable, someone who, by virtue of their non belief must rationally (and this is the key word here) have a proper referent to their claim to authority or someone who can point to the sky?

This issue is about ideals. It is about from what position we start the fight. That's all I can ask for. I can't force 'liberals' to be rational any more than I should be surprised that a religious person is rational.

You are mistaking the actual for the ideal. Neither of us can control the actual. We both get that we can see idiocy from both sides. All we can do is make an appeal to an ideal, a starting point, a playing field that we can have the argument on. And again, all things being equal (this is key because I can't control the what any given person does with their beliefs), I don't want that playing field to consist of someone pointing to the sky, or more appropriately what bronze age farmers said 2000-3000 years ago as the current basis for how we currently are supposed to live our lives.

If you are interested and haven't seen this already, for this rational versus actual debate, here is a link of a debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and Professor Shelly Kagan. What's relevant to this discussion here is Kelly's discussion of what underlies ethics. He can only appeal to Craig here on these grounds. Whether Craig follows his rules, believes them, is a better person than Shelly or anyone else is irrelevant to setting the ground rules. That comes after we have set the rules because I can't even have a discussion with you if it boils down to "because God says it". How am I to fight that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

tony5732
 
  0  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 11:01 am
@catbeasy,
Well stated, but I wouldn't discount some of those bronze age farmers. We are STILL trying to figure out a lot of the really complicated things they figured out without our technology.

They weren't dumb in any sense of the word, philosophically, ideologically, or in function.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 11:19 am
Liberal progressive democrats are increasingly accepting of their huge loss...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 11:34 am
@tony5732,
True, but his tax plan will help the wealthy more than others. That's not
good for our deficit.
However, if he can maintain and improve our economy, it would alleviate most of the negatives
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 11:34 am
@catbeasy,
What is this must have a proper referent to authority? Who told you that?
"The issue here is what is more desirable, someone who, by virtue of their non belief must rationally (and this is the key word here) have a proper referent to their claim to authority or someone who can point to the sky?"

Most people who don't have religious beliefs are absent of belief. Most of us don't go on about believing there are no gods. Sure, some atheists go that second step that is itself an assertive statement, but most of us don't waste our time.


Back to Trump.
He seems to exist but is fairly amorphous in regard to good works.

maporsche
 
  3  
Fri 23 Dec, 2016 11:39 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

OH my God! Are you claiming we are descended from the apes? Every one knows that man was created by God from mud, and Eve made from Adams rib.Where were you raised? By the way I think man made from mud is pretty apt. For some people anyway.


I met a person one time who in a religious discussion with me actually pointed to the "fact" that men have one less rib than women as proof that the bible is the one and only truth.

He mentioned this several times before I realized that he was completely serious. I corrected him and then pulled up some picture proof on the google machine and he moved on to some other argument.

The fact that a grown ass man believed that men had one less rib than women because the bible told him so truly demonstrated to me that people can convince themselves of anything and that the smartest among us constantly question our belief systems.
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.78 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 10:45:41