monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I grew in Texas and Tennessee then moved to New York in 1960, moving back south in 1963. I knew and hated racism in the south, knew history; but, hadn't put it together completely with politics yet.

When in New York, I began to realize that the black racism in the south was reflected in the north as anti Jew, Italians (Waps), and NE European (Slavics, Polacks, etc). There is some form of majority/minority conflict everywhere!

Of course, nothing is comparable with racism in the south. Well, except Nazism and the Jews, or, Christians vs the Muslims, or, Christians vs the Jews, or, Shia vs the Sunnis, or, oh, nevermind!

Blatham's endlessly repeated references to a "movement conservatism"

The most logical book ever written is the Bible, yet some people reject or avoid it because they dislike being informed of the truth, and would prefer denying it.

The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

No more comment on this, Hi? If you were paying attention, you would know that the "whole russia investigation" has been turned upside down.

Quote:

The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

Trial by media, and it's ongoing. Not surprising that the cheer squad on this page don't want to hear about it.

I mean, this is a real thing. It's a term used by Conservative writers all the time

Re: Cycloptichorn (Post 6555380)
See for instance Movement conservatve @ Conservapedia.

I'd never heard of Conservapedia before,

You can’t make this stuff up

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

This report also claims there is no apparent evidence that the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 — supposedly based in Romania — hacked the DNC on behalf of the Russian government. There is also no evidence, the report's authors say, that Guccifer handed documents over to WikiLeaks. Instead, the report says that the evidence and timeline of events suggests that Guccifer may have been conjured up in an attempt to deflect from the embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign that was released just before the Democratic National Convention. The investigators found that some of the "Guccifer" files had been deliberately altered by copying and pasting the text into a "Russianified" word-processing document with Russian-language settings.

If all this is true, these findings would constitute a massive embarrassment for not only the DNC itself but the media, which has breathlessly pushed the Russian hacking narrative for an entire year, almost without question but with little solid evidence to back it up.

While Moore has his ardent fans, more than anything else, this election may wind up being the perfect embodiment of the common belief on the right that anything that makes liberals mad must be good. As Alabama columnist Kyle Whitmire recently wrote, "If The Washington Post ran a banner headline tomorrow saying, 'Antifreeze is poison, don't drink it,' a sizable number of Alabamians would be dead tomorrow."

You hear something similar in testimony from voter after voter: Sure, maybe Moore stalked malls and high schools preying on teenage girls, but what am I going to do — vote for a Democrat? It's the purest expression of negative partisanship, the tendency of voters on both sides to be motivated much more strongly by dislike of the other party than by affection for their own. In 2016, Donald Trump showed how powerful negative partisanship can be — he did no worse among Republican voters than Mitt Romney or John McCain did, despite all the misgivings so many of them supposedly had — and the Alabama election is providing an even more vivid illustration.

Yeah, that site is a joke

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, that site is a joke

At first I thought that you meant that the site was satirical (like The Onion).

Turns out that it's not meant to be and that items like I posted about logic are only funny in a 'I can't believe they're serious!!" kind of way.

The persistence of Roy Moore’s Senate campaign in Alabama offers Republicans no similar quarter. Moore—a credibly accused pedophile—can’t boast a Trump-like history of heterodoxy. He has been a right-wing authoritarian, theocrat, and folk hero for a very long time. Should Moore win, his victory would not force Democrats into a new cycle of recriminations, the way Trump’s did, but it would underscore the fact that Republicans have doubled down on the Faustian bet they made last year.

Then as now, Republicans managed to sever their ties with their morally indefensible candidate for about a week. In exchange for what may prove to be a decisive vote for corporate tax cuts and unqualified federal judges, Republicans have shown they will tolerate nearly bottomless depravity. To those ends they have declined to discourage people from voting for Moore. To the same ends, they would most likely look past the impropriety of Trump firing Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller.

But for all these reasons, Republicans won’t be able to differentiate themselves from Moore the way they were able to differentiate themselves from Trump.