192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
emmett grogan
 
  4  
Tue 22 Aug, 2017 11:17 pm
Below, a breakdown of some of the wildest moments from the rally.

1. He kicked off the speech by re-reading all his responses to the protests in Charlottesville. While going over his widely-criticized initial response, Trump omitted the most controversial part of his initial statement, in which he blamed “many sides” for violence there.

2. He called out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “We have to speak to Mitch” about eliminating the Senate filibuster, Trump said. (The filibuster was not a factor in stopping the Republican health care bill.) Earlier on Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Trump and McConnell have not spoken in weeks.

3. He suggested he’d shut down the government if it meant he could get a wall built along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“If we have to shut down that government, we’re building that wall,” Trump said. “One way or another we’re going to get that wall.”

4. He argued the media is “trying to take away our history, our heritage.”

“The only thing giving a platform to these hate groups is the media itself and the fake news,” Trump said.

“I really think they don’t like our country. I really believe that,” he added.

5. He defended his remarks on Charlottesville by saying he “hit” various racist groups.

“I hit ’em with neo-Nazi, I hit ’em with everything,” he said. “I got the white supremacist, I got the neo-Nazi, I got ’em all in there, let’s see. KKK? We have KKK. I got ’em all.”

6. He lied and said cameras at the rally were being turned off, as live streams of the speech on cable news networks continued to roll. He specifically called out CNN, which aired Trump’s speech until the end.

7. He teased a pardon for Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County who convicted of criminal contempt.

8. He bragged about how he lives in a “bigger, more beautiful apartment” than the journalists who cover him.

9. He lamented CNN’s firing of Jeffrey Lord, a pro-Trump commentator formerly featured on the network. Lord was fired for tweeting the Nazi salute “Sieg Heil” earlier in August.

10. He slammed both Republican Arizona senators: Jeff Flake, who has recently spoken out against Trump, and John McCain, who cast a pivotal vote that caused the GOP’s Obamacare repeal bill to flame out in the Senate in July. McCain is currently receiving treatment for brain cancer.

11. He, again, requested statues of George Washington be protected, a request he’s made since many Confederate statues and monuments around the U.S. have been removed or relocated.

12. He suggested “we will probably end up terminating NAFTA at some point.”

13. He praised Fox News and Sean Hannity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-arizona-rally_us_599cf690e4b0a296083adeee?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
emmett grogan
 
  2  
Tue 22 Aug, 2017 11:19 pm
@Real Music,
Not Kumbaya - its a Kenyan word.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  5  
Tue 22 Aug, 2017 11:30 pm
@emmett grogan,
Well, that was insane.

If you're a journalist, how do you even start writing about this event? The praise for Jeffrey "Sieg Heil" Lord? The relitigation of his Charlottesville remarks? "Sheriff Joe?" The threat to shut down government over his wall?
old europe
 
  5  
Tue 22 Aug, 2017 11:32 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Why do you subject yourself to them?


Finn, are you really asking "why do subject yourself to a rally speech by the President of the United States of America?"
emmett grogan
 
  2  
Tue 22 Aug, 2017 11:59 pm
@old europe,
Quote:
how do you even start writing about this event?


The same way one deals with a pile of manure -one turd at a time.
0 Replies
 
emmett grogan
 
  3  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 12:00 am
@old europe,
Quote:
Finn, are you really asking "why do subject yourself to a rally speech by the President of the United States of America?"


He asks a good question - why indeed.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 12:28 am
@emmett grogan,
emmett grogan wrote:

Quote:
Free speech and civil war statue aficionados advocate at a city council meeting in San Antonio


Quote:
When the city council opened debate on a proposal to relocate Confederate statues from San Antonio’s Travis Park, about 10 men showed up wearing kevlar vests and carrying assault rifles. According to the Rivard Report, a local online news site, the men were escorting Brandon Burkhart, vice president of This Is Texas Freedom Force (“committed to protecting Texas and Texas history").


This appears to be, in part, simply a group of 30 Something boys playing commando. Of course desert camo is very practical in San Antonio and the shemagh the guy in the shades on the right is wearing probably would have come in handy if tear gas canisters were thrown, but these guys all spent a lot of money on their gear and the chance to wear it to town was too good pass up.

However, do you imagine that Burkhart has not received death threats of that if his gang met up with an Antifa crew the possibility of violence would be considerable?

Quote:
In his comments, Burkhart did not conceal his intention: to personally intimidate the two council members, Roberto Treviño and William “Cruz” Shaw, both people of color, who sponsored the relocation proposal:

“I’m going to address you guys again, especially you two, Shaw and Treviño,” Burkhart said, his voice echoing through the chamber. “Do you guys see the problems that you’re causing? … Do you know the death threats that I’ve received?”


I'm not going to suggest that it's impossible that Burkhart was trying to intimidate the two people of color, but I guess my sympathy for white supremacists prevents me from seeing what he said as obvious intimidation or, for that matter, a threat. Did he say anything else to the gentlemen? But then I also don't see why it was necessary for the author to point out that Shaw and Trevino were "people of color." Does that make intimidation with firearms that much worse than had they been white?

Quote:
The two councilmen rejected Burkhart’s threats as "sad" and inappropriate for San Antonio, but there is no disputing that “open carry” intimidation tactics are now becoming normalized, much to the dismay of elected officials and law enforcement officials responsible for keeping the peace.


God but I wish we could ban the word "normalize." I live in an open carry part of the country and I assure you that no one finds it normal when someone walks down the street with a pistol in their hand let alone a bunch of guys dressed and armed like Army Rangers.

I do understand though the difficulty and concern it presents to the police who are charged with protecting the lives of citizens participating in or observing demonstrations. Of course this presupposes that the dismayed elected officials don't issue stand down orders once things start getting hot and even engineer things so it will.

I'm not sure what the answer to the problem is though. With violence now breaking our at nearly every political demonstration that takes place in this country, it doesn't seem wise to rely on the forbearance of armed hotheads to use their weapons only when their lives are truly in danger, and even assuming an armed right-wing demonstrator only uses his when truly in fear for his safety the left-wing demonstrators aren't about to pause and agree "Yeah, our guys went too far and had it coming. They could have killed the Neo-Nazi." Instead it would be far more likely to trigger a blood bath. (BTW - Feel free to switch the political positions of the players in my hypothetical)

I'd have to give it more thought and listen to counter-arguments before I decided, but I can easily imagine supporting laws that prohibit anyone participating in a demonstration to carry a weapon, openly or otherwise. There could be difficulties at times in proving someone charged with a violation was actually participating in the demonstration, but I think the legislators can probably work that out and still not overly restrict 2nd Amendment rights.

Quote:
"In a new age of domestic terrorism, we need to re-examine the balance that we strike between public safety and violent protests," said Charlottesville mayor Mike Signer in the wake of violent protests that led to the death of Heather Heyer.


This is rich since it looks like Signer arranged for the protests in his City to turn violent, but regardless, [i]there is no balance to strike between public safety and violent protests. [/i]The former is paramount and the latter is illegal. What the hell is this idiot talking about? He can't possibly mean that society needs to accept and allow a little bit of violence in our protests (as long as the right side is being violent) can he?

Quote:
"First, the danger is too great of a catastrophic incident," Signer said. "Second, it is intimidating beyond any reasonable standard for citizens, particularly members of vulnerable communities."


Here we go again. Who are the vulnerable communities of which he speaks? The aged and infirm? Pregnant women and kids? Of course not, he means minority communities and while they have every right to be free of intimidation, their right is no greater than any other community, including a community consisting of Burkhart and his commandos. Intimidating death threats are not part of acceptable behavior in our society, no matter who they are directed at.

Signer and others with his mindset seem to want to establish a society where ideology and identity determine the degree of immorality and even illegality of different groups of people committing the same actions, and the degree of virtue, legitimacy and protection assigned to different group of people suffering the same risks and perils.

It is the ideological identity phenomenon Frank Bruni wrote of recently in the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/sunday/identity-politics-white-men.html?mcubz=0

Quote:
But I question the wisdom of turning categories into credentials when it comes to politics and public debate. I reject the assumptions — otherwise known as prejudices — that certain life circumstances prohibit sensitivity and sound judgment while other conditions guarantee them. That appraises the packaging more than it does the content. It ignores the complexity of people. It’s reductive.


And I question not only the wisdom but the rightness of using categories as a means of determining privilege. The privilege to decide who is evil and deserves to be silenced. The privilege to decide when it is acceptable for citizens to take the law into their own hands and use violence to silence those they deem evil. Even the perverse privilege of designating your suffering to be greater than that of anyone else and therefore bestowing upon you a unique right to speak when those who disagree with you are to be silenced. That this is occurring in a effort to combat privilege makes it ironic, not just.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 02:20 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

And my opinion is that your constant harping (like this metaphor better?) on Clinton is unhealthy, illogical and downright obscene. Character assassination is disgusting as a political tool, but here you're assassinating a dead corpse.


This is too easy...What is your opinion about constant harping on Trump?

Trump is POTUS and that attracts scrutiny. Hillary Clinton lost the election. Get over it.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 02:22 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I was responding directly to a question that called for a comparison.

And I told you: if you want to compare the current POTUS with another politician, do it with a previous president, for instance Obama or Bush. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges.
Lash
 
  -4  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 03:56 am
@Olivier5,
If you read back to see, the comparison called for was between Trump and Clinton.

I think you should have known what you were talking about before your lordly interjection, and your imagined entitlement to choose topics of conversation for others on a message board makes you look pompous and dictatorial.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  3  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 04:53 am
@emmett grogan,
emmett grogan wrote:

What???? TRUMP doesn't have the ear and interests of the wealthy on HIS mind.


In my opinion, Trump is a corporate whore (among many other things, none of which are flattering to him).

Quote:
Mrs Clinton is much more the politician than she is the cohort of the wealthy.


Are you implying that politicians can't be corporate whores? How does being "more" of a politician make her "less" of an advocate for policies that benefit corporations? IMO, being a seasoned "politician" simply provides a person with the skill sets necessary to "sell" what would be otherwise unpalatable to the people.

Do you wonder why donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up after she lost the election and the foundation was closed? Thinking about that (among many other things that serve as clues) might give you some insight into her "politics".

Quote:
If the system needs fixing handing the system over to Trump was a very bad idea.


Handing the system over to either Trump or Clinton was a bad idea. You might be trying to sell Clinton as the lesser evil, but I'm not buying. Many millions of people didn't buy that argument and didn't vote for her.

Quote:
I vociferously supported Bernie right up to the final gavel at the convention and tried a short term push to draft Biden, another Dem with a checkered past, I mean Delaware for Pete's sake!

Sitting out an election to punish Clinton or the DNC or the Party itself also kept progressives out of Congress because if a voter doesn't show up specifically because of one candidate, he/she didn't show up for any one else on the ticket/ballot, either.


Millions of people will not support a rigged political system where we have only two equally unacceptable people to choose from for our president. Millions of people did not accept the argument that Clinton was the lesser evil. The DNC should alter its course or risk losing electoral support. End of story.


Quote:
Lets face it, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken would be a lot more effective under a Clinton Presidency. She was sliding left. She's a politician - she knows how to change her program.

Why is it almost every Democratic politician has felt it necessary to tack right, including Mrs Clinton?


Your crystal ball is unreliable. Obama shifted to the right and he didn't get my vote in 2012. But Clinton would have shifted the party to the left, if only? I'm not sympathetic to your argument.
Lash
 
  -2  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 05:05 am
@Debra Law,
❤️🙋🏻
Refreshing!!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 05:07 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

And my opinion is that your constant harping (like this metaphor better?) on Clinton is unhealthy, illogical and downright obscene. Character assassination is disgusting as a political tool, but here you're assassinating a dead corpse.

If you want to compare Trump with prior politicians, compare him with an ex-president. Otherwise it's apple and, well, oranges.


And yet there those who blame the Trump presidency on the progressives who would not vote for Clinton.

It appears the DNC hopes to move even further to the right (for the benefit of corporate interests) and entice moderate GOP voters to enter the DNC tent. I doubt that strategy will work.
Debra Law
 
  2  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 05:45 am
@Debra Law,
emmett grogan wrote:

Why is it almost every Democratic politician has felt it necessary to tack right, including Mrs Clinton?


I posted my previous reply without responding to the above question.

The Clintons, among others, are the ones who started the DNC's movement to the right back in the days when Bill was a rising politician. The reason for doing so? BIG MONEY. Why bother with small donations from individuals when it's easier to finance campaigns with big money flowing in from wealthy capitalists and corporations.

But now with the internet, it is very easy for millions of regular folk to donate money to the candidates of their choice. A click of the mouse, it's done. Progressives may have a fighting chance.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  5  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 06:08 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote Finn:
Quote:
Her cackling laughter, patronizing black DJs by telling them she always carried hot sauce in her purse,....made me squirm in my chair and I can't imagine sitting through an entire speech or interview of hers,

Once again, you prove that you have no idea how life is lived except for the small group of hidebound conservatives you apparently surround yourself with. Clearly, vast numbers of people carry around various treats and condiments with them all the time.

Quote Daily Mail:
Quote:
And more than a third of the 2,000 women surveyed in London, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the West Midlands refuse to leave the house without chocolate in their bags.


Quote writer Christopher Middleton:
Quote:
By Christopher Middleton
8:34PM GMT 18 Dec 2013

The news that Nigella Lawson carries around a tube of English mustard in her handbag has caused a rash of confessions to break out among fellow condiment-users. Far from packing just the odd roll of Polos for minty-breath freshness, it seems we Brits cram our clutch bags and jacket pockets full of the foods and moreish flavours we can’t do without.

At least we’re in good company: Tom Parker Bowles doesn’t leave the house without Tabasco, the Queen has been spotted smuggling sweeteners, and even a skinny minny like Naomi Campbell has a bit of a taste habit. Apparently, the supermodel rarely ventures out in public without a small jar of Jamaican hot sauce to sprinkle over her supper. Not that she carries it about her person. No fashion icon wants to be photographed with a VBL (Visible Bottle Line); she’s been known to have a bodyguard to proffer the liquid as required.

What’s more, it doesn’t take a barrister at Isleworth Crown Court to extract similar confessions from the not-so-famous. Even low-level interrogation of friends and family uncovers a significant level of furtive food-carrying. In fact, frisk the average man on the street, and you may well find a walking pantry.

Not that we’re carrying anything in any way gourmet. No one, it seems, goes round with a jar of Beluga caviar sandwiched between their wallet and their front-door keys. “I’ve got a small tin of Ambrosia creamed rice in my briefcase,” confesses a corporate-type friend. “I usually eat it on the train, if I’m travelling first-class and there’s no one else around.”

“Occasionally, I’ll buy a tin of sild, and eat it in a lay-by if I’m on a long drive,” another male friend tells me (sild, by the way, is a mini-herring). “I don’t tell my wife because she thinks it’s disgusting and won’t allow it in the house. She found the can-opener in the car one day, so now I only get cans with a ring-pull opener.”

Telegraph

Who are you to judge what condiment/treat others might carry around?

Or are you hiding something?



Lash
 
  -3  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 06:17 am
The Third Way

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/atkins-dlc-third-way-clinton-blair-schroeder-social-democracy

An excerpt:

The program was meant as an obituary for “old left” politics, but it was not particularly original. The Blair/Schröder statement mirrored DLC messaging. It included an acceptance of equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, a contractual understanding of welfare benefits as conditional on personal responsibility, an end to class struggle and a “rekindling of community” and partnership, a stronger role for the private sector in driving economic growth, flexible labor markets, a state that would “not row, but steer” a “supply-side” welfare regime focused on investment in human capital rather than redistribution, and a “more responsible” attitude toward public debt. The statement concluded by characterizing the politics of the Third Way as “Europe’s new hope.”

Another excerpt:

The Third Way program — in both its original DLC version as well as its European progeny — was jarring because of the extent to which it traded traditional left principles for those of the New Right. Clinton, Blair, and the rest of the Third Wayers told the Left it could no longer turn to an old set of “big government” policies and expect them to work in a globalized world.
-------------------------------




0 Replies
 
emmett grogan
 
  4  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 06:43 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Dance, Finn, dance.

Violent antifas, right? Poor little Nazi twits need weaponizing because of unarmed antifas. You don't question the stated aims of an armed HATE groups but you question the antifa's unarmed intentions to let your "free speech" Nazis know they're not representivie of the majority.
0 Replies
 
emmett grogan
 
  4  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 06:53 am
@Debra Law,
What blows your opinion out of yhe water:

Quote:
Obama shifted to the right and he didn't get my vote in 2012.


So you voted for the more liberal Romney?

The problem isn't the candidates its the process. Instead of character assassination and wasted votes what have you done about the system other than a protest vote that helped deliver a disaster that is the Trump White House.
0 Replies
 
emmett grogan
 
  5  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 06:57 am
@Blickers,
I wonder how much Finn melts into his seat when he sees big burly good ol' boys who whip their hot sauce out its own little holster to flavor their grits?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  6  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 07:21 am
@Debra Law,
Quote:
And yet there those who blame the Trump presidency on the progressives who would not vote for Clinton. 

There are many reasons why Trump was elected. One is that the dems bet on the wrong horse. Another could be that a number of Bernie supporters decided not to vote for Hillary.

Between a pussy-grabbing conman with fascist tendencies and a corrupt, flip-flopping politician, I personally would have voted for the latter without any doubt, if I were American. That's what Bernie did, remember? That was the responsible thing to do. Trump is toxic. He's been spreading hatred from the get-go. He imperils the very fabric of the US democracy.

It serves no purpose to keep beating on Hillary now, other than self-gratification or self-justification. She's the proverbial dead horse. Let's learn from her mistakes alright, but without demonizing her. Because if the left does not unite, the next step is concentration camps à la Joe Arpaio.

As Walt said, this already happened once.
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
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 06/26/2022 at 07:45:00