monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@blatham,

This probably isn't relevant, but slut has more than one meaning. It used to mean a slovenly, lazy woman. The sexual promiscuity came later. When I was studying Tess of the d'Urbervilles for A level, our teacher, who was getting on a bit, called Tess's mum a slut. We as a class were outraged because she isn't at all sexually promiscuous, only to be told the other meaning.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Anyway, it is amazing the politically religious conservatives support Trump. I would like to ask them just what it is about him they find to support.

I can't speak for them because I'm not one of them, but I do know a couple. I think you would find that their reason is pretty much the same as would be that of a moderate or socially conservative Democrat supporting Sanders in a race against Trump or feminists who supported Bill Clinton: For all their failings and unsupported positions they are/were better than the alternative.

Despite what you and many others may believe, they are not all religious fanatics looking to establish a theocracy. Generally, they want a candidate who states he or she is Pro-Life and not Pro-Choice and this will excuse a number of sins. They also want a candidate who isn't looking to curtail religious freedom, but protect it. They want a candidate who freely refers to God without hesitation. They are afraid and angry that the nation is losing its tether to Judeo-Christian values.

There may be more they want, but I think this pretty well sums it up based on what I know.

May not be the best criteria for choosing a president but is it any worse than the voters who vote Democrat because they are counting on getting more free stuff, or who support fining or jailing someone for using the wrong pronoun?

The American people are, in the main, not a bunch of ignorant dolts. Whether they vote Republican or Democrat they know what they believe will make this a better nation for themselves and their children, and who are any of us to say that we know better than them? Condescending idiots talking about people voting against their interests really only mean they are voting against what they want to see.

The two groups are obviously not always in agreement which is why there are two parties. They are, on both sides, overly susceptible to the lying of people who want power and will promise anything to get it. You would think that by now we would have figured the con out and stop falling for it, but apparently, hope springs eternal or a sucker is born every minute.

Every single president elected in my lifetime has made campaign promises and then failed to deliver on some key ones that got them votes. Everyone. We accept it and then we fall for it again.

0 Replies

Quote:

China has told North Korean companies operating in its territory to close down as it implements United Nations sanctions against the reclusive state.
The companies will be shut by early January. Joint Chinese and North Korean ventures will also be forced to close.
China, Pyongyang's only major ally, has already banned textile trade and limited oil exports.
The move is part of an international response to North Korea's sixth and most powerful nuclear test.
The UN Security Council, of which China is a member, voted unanimously for fresh sanctions on 11 September.
China's commerce ministry said it had set a deadline of 120 days from the passing of the resolution for any North Korean companies within its borders to close.
North Korea is politically and economically isolated, and the vast majority of its trade is with China.
Beijing has traditionally been protective of its neighbour, but has sharply criticised its nuclear tests and escalating rhetoric.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41431057

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Some of them are just hypocrites but a large percentage of them were simply playing realpolitik to prevent Scalia's seat from going to a moderate.

Yes. That is key. There are a lot of people at the top of the religious right organizations who have been at this political game for a long while and they have been working quite tirelessly to bring about a legal regime responsive to their wishes. Of course, it hasn't been just the religious right pushing in this direction but their support, organizational discipline and activism has made them a formidable force. Gorsuch was their reward. And if they get another, I'd say that the US is fucked.

1 Reply

@blatham,

To that list you can add attacking anti fascists and supporting Neo Nazis right to free speech.

2 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Some of them are just hypocrites but a large percentage of them were simply playing realpolitik to prevent Scalia's seat from going to a moderate.
Yes. That is key. There are a lot of people at the top of the religious right organizations who have been at this political game for a long while and they have been working quite tirelessly to bring about a legal regime responsive to their wishes. Of course, it hasn't been just the religious right pushing in this direction but their support, organizational discipline and activism has made them a formidable force. Gorsuch was their reward. And if they get another, I'd say that the US is fucked.

And I would say...Saved

1 Reply

In between all the carping at one another, did anyone talk about Trump's tax plan proposal?

I have a really, really hard time seeing them pass this thing. It relies on two points that are pretty damn shaky:

In order for them to pass this via Reconciliation rules (which they'll have to to pass anything at all at this point), they would need to show that this is a deficit-reducing bill. It is not a deficit-reducing bill in any way, shape or fashion. In fact, it massively explodes the deficit from today's levels (which are already high). In order to overcome this, they'll need to:

A) cut social program spending massively. This will get them into the same problem in the Senate as they did with health care in the House.

B) cut tax breaks to make up for the deficit. The current proposal would be to remove the ability to deduct state and local taxes from Federal taxes. This is specifically designed to starve 'blue' states of money to pay for tax cuts for rich folks in red states. The problem with this is that even 'blue' states have a TON of GOP house members. Do you think these House members are going to vote for a giant tax increase on their constituents, right before an election? I don't.

I could also go on at length about the fact that this is just a gigantic giveaway for the wealthy (which it clearly is), and that the Corporate tax bits are predicated 100% on lies and you couldn't find a better example of corporate welfare if you tried, but those are pretty self-evident even to Conservatives. Not to mention the idiocy of Gary Cohn claiming that these tax cuts will 'pay for themselves' by growing the economy! Like, who do these people think they are, that they think people buy that lame voodoo economics bullshit?

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

And I would say...Saved

Good thinking. Let's get Roy Moore up there in a black robe.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

You can also add supporting Colin Kaepernick's right to peacefully protest, criticizing Trump's attack on speech, pointing out all the awesome moves BernieSanders has been making lately, wondering why nobody has a good impeachment case ready to go yet, black achievement, why BLM is an important movement, support for individual rights...

But, I know that doesn't fit your narrative. Quick, thumb it down. Maybe no one will see it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I tend to stay away from economics discussions/arguments because I'm poorly educated in this field. But I have no problem with anyone (who isn't an idiot) posting on this important matter. Links to good analyses always welcome.

0 Replies

@blatham,

I think you and your fan base have all the anti-Trump stuff well-covered, but you seem to be blind to the dirt with a D on it.

I cover that.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Good points.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Glib

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

This probably isn't relevant, but slut has more than one meaning. It used to mean a slovenly, lazy woman.

I hadn't known that. Here's some more data:

Quote:

1375-1425; late Middle English slutte; compare dial. slut mud, Norwegian (dial.) slutr sleet, impure liquid

Slut first appeared in the written language in 1402, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, that great repository of language information. At that time, slut meant roughly what one sense of slattern means today: a slovenly, untidy woman or girl. It also apparently meant “kitchen maid” (”She is a cheerful slut who keeps the pots scrubbed and the fires hot.”).

Not surprising there's a deep element of social class here.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This will get them into the same problem in the Senate as they did with health care in the House.

I'm hoping (against hope perhaps) that the Democrats wake up in time to take advantage of this. It seems like a couple of non-party line followers in the GOP are doing the heavy lifting, with the Democrats getting/deserving/taking little credit.

The Democrats need to move past Clinton/Sanders and look to the future. Bring in the 25 - 35 year old candidates and change things up.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This will get them into the same problem in the Senate as they did with health care in the House.

I'm hoping (against hope perhaps) that the Democrats wake up in time to take advantage of this. It seems like a couple of non-party line followers in the GOP are doing the heavy lifting, with the Democrats getting/deserving/taking little credit.

The Democrats need to move past Clinton/Sanders and look to the future. Bring in the 25 - 35 year old candidates and change things up.

Agreed. I do know there are a lot of House candidates for the Dems up for election next year that will bring new blood to the party, but the Senate is a whole other taco. It's going to be a tough enough election all around without having untested politicians going, and even in a successful year the Dems are likely to lose seats due to the map.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Supreme Court takes up case that will devastate public sector unions
Neil Gorsuch holds the fifth vote to deliver a staggering blow to the union movement.

TP

0 Replies

Money was taken out of my paycheck against my will. I didn't want to be in the union.

I had no rights in the matter, and I was furious.

People should be able to choose to pay for union benefits, or not receive them.

2 Replies

Quote:

I don't generally see eye to eye with Karl Rove, but about a week ago, the Republican operative reflected on Alabama's U.S. Senate special election, and he raised a perfectly legitimate point.

Quote:
"Roy Moore would be the Todd Akin of 2017 and 2018 for every Republican on the ballot," said Karl Rove, the Republican strategist, who is aligned with the Senate Leadership Fund. "Republicans will be asked, 'Do you agree homosexuality should be punished by death, do you believe 9/11 was a result of God's anger?' He'll say outrageous things, the media will play it up, and every Republican will be asked, 'Do you agree with that?'"

Well, yeah, of course they'll be asked, "Do you agree with that?" Their party is poised to welcome to the Senate a theocrat who believes his radical religious beliefs supersede American laws. If Republicans are going to support Roy Moore's candidacy, it necessarily means they're at least comfortable with his brand of Christian nationalism.

And so Rove has a point. Are GOP senators on board with Moore's belief that religious minorities in the United States are not entitled to equal protection under the law? Do they support Moore's vision of fundamentalist Christianity being the nation's top legal authority? Do Republicans accept Moore's belief that he can ignore court rulings and court orders he doesn't like?

Benen

Rove might be a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Money was taken out of my paycheck against my will. I didn't want to be in the union.

I had no rights in the matter, and I was furious.

People should be able to choose to pay for union benefits, or not receive them.

You can't not receive them - those unions already fought for decades to institute that which you now consider to be standard.

Pretty ******* ungrateful of you to turn your backs on them now though

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know