That's got to be fake news, ci. It just can't be possible that the man now in the White House said these things!
Quote:
- "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth."
- " I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody"
- "Nobody knows more about debt."
- "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world. "
- "Nobody knows banking better than I do"
- [I know the Wall St bankers] Better than anyone."
- "I understand money better than anybody.
- "I think nobody knows the system [of government] better than I do."
- "I know more about contributions than anybody."
- "Nobody knows politicians better than Donald Trump."
- "Nobody knows more about trade than me."
- "Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump."
- "There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am."
- "There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me."
- "Because nobody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me."
Anyone who talked like that - who thought like that - would be a raving ******* lunatic. He would be suffering a serious mental disorder. Such a person could surely never get into the White House. God knows what might happen if such a person ever did get such power.
Quote:
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings.[4][5] People affected by it often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or about their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them. The behavior typically begins by early adulthood, and occurs across a variety of situations
I think I'm going to have to avoid watching Trump's impromptu speeches.
I'd rather not watch how the sausage is made.
It's going to be a very long four years if he keeps obsessing about the sizes of his crowds and how many times he's been on the cover of Time Magazine every time he gets on a podium.
Sorry, this is going to be a hit and run post. Ain't going to post it on Facebook or Twitter cause that would feel like going out of my way to offend friends and colleagues, but feel a need to get this rant out of my system somewhere. Luckily, we're anonymous here, so heeerrree goes:
------
Seen on Twitter and in friends’ Facebook posts: numbers and photos which tout how massive a turnout Obama drew for his inauguration - 1.8 million people! - and how Trump attracted just a fraction of that (just 250,000!).
Intended reaction: to laugh about how pathetic Trump is.
Alternative reaction: to wonder about how the Dems went from rallying a massive groundswell of popular support to being defeated by Donald ******* Trump. Eight years ago, Obama floated on an incredible favorability rating of 68% when he entered office. Three months ago, the Democrats were running a candidate with the worst favorability rate of any Democratic nominee in modern history. Like, instead of writing hagiographic odes to how Obama was the most wonderful, amazing President who personally set the US onto a track of justice and reason, maybe wonder what the hell you guys did wrong?
I can see the attraction. Obama was, in many ways, a liberal’s wet dream - a personification of academic deliberation and moderation, of ever making good-faith efforts to engage all stakeholders in evidence-based incremental policy change. In 2016, the Democrats lost crucial states in the presidential race, but down ballot as well, because they lost unprecedented ground among traditionally Dem-voting low income, lower-educated voters. Too many of whom were so angry and disappointed, they voted for the guy who told them what they knew - that the system is rigged against them - or at least stayed home. Maybe there is a connection between those things?
When I grew up, if you were angry and powerless and you felt big change was necessary; if you felt that the system was unjust, that poor and working people faced a bum rap, that the elites had set the playing ground to slant towards them and their offspring, you voted for the left. Because those parties understood. With a bit of luck, their politicians could be bold and speak plainly, not being afraid of ruffling feathers.
Now, if you’re angry and feel that the system is setting them up to fail - that it isn’t working for people struggling to get by, even as the rich are getting richer - Vox or its European equivalents will lecture you with charts about how, really, the economy is doing well (Obama did a great job!). Academic liberals will tut-tut at you for using, in your anger, a word that could be construed to be offensive, and we would never say anything offensive, because we’re educated, civilized people who believe in facts and citations. Democratic politicians will boast - or did, at least, before they were proven badly wrong - how “for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” Well-heeled professionals who crossed over to the center-left because Trump et al. are just too icky hold forth in newspaper columns and on Twitter about how left-wing populists are really just as bad as Trump. Or how they don’t understand why those people struggling for jobs in the Appalachians (etc) don’t just move. Or how the Democrats don’t need those backward white working class voters in the sticks who are probably all racist and homophobes anymore anyway. Shrinking demographics, don’t you know. (Never mind that the Dems lost ground among low-income/education minority voters too).
If you’ve lost to a Donald ******* Trump who can’t rally more than a sixth of Obama’s crowds for his inauguration, maybe it’s you who did something wrong? I mean, it’s worth considering.
Melania is also a successful entrepreneur. In April 2010, Melania Trump launched her own jewelry collection.
This is noteworthy:
Quote:
Mrs. Trump cares deeply about issues impacting women and children, and she has focused her platform as First Lady on the problem of cyber bullying among our youth.
I think it will be difficult for her to be a credible spokesperson on the issue of cyber bullying.
I was thinking the exact same thing doing the dishes two days ago. His legacy is... well, Trump. Obama played the cool, smart, even intellectual president but he never daigned to get his hands dirty at politics. He enjoyed and still has got so much popular support. He could have pushed back aggressively on the Republicans and tea baggers, got involved in reforming the Democrats, promoted pro-poor Dem candidates and honest reformist congressmen, promote good quality public education, react to the Snowden revelations by fencing in intel agencies, etc. What a waste of talent.
Amen.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
And it's quite ironic that because he didn't want to sink to the low level of building (mutually beneficial) relationships and working out deals
Ha. Obamacare became as much of a semi-effective muddle as it is (still useful, still a major improvement on the status quo, but also a frustrating mess that left many regular people alienated by high prices, high bureaucratic hurdles, and spotty implementation) because Obama was obsessed by the notion of "building (mutually beneficial) relationships and working out deals".
How much time, policy substance (see: public option) and political capital did he lose and waste, chasing for months and months after that mythically 'gettable' Republican swing vote that of course never materialized, because the GOP was never gonna let him get it anyway?
Sorry, this is going to be a hit and run post. . . . Ain't going to post it on Facebook or Twitter cause that would feel like going out of my way to offend friends and colleagues, but feel a need to get this rant out of my system somewhere. Luckily, we're anonymous here, so heeerrree goes:
------
Seen on Twitter and in friends’ Facebook posts: numbers and photos which tout how massive a turnout Obama drew for his inauguration - 1.8 million people! - and how Trump attracted just a fraction of that (just 250,000!).
Intended reaction: to laugh about how pathetic Trump is.
Alternative reaction: to wonder about how the Dems went from rallying a massive groundswell of popular support to being defeated by Donald ******* Trump. Eight years ago, Obama floated on an incredible favorability rating of 68% when he entered office. Three months ago, the Democrats were running a candidate with the worst favorability rate of any Democratic nominee in modern history. . . .
A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
0 Replies
layman
-3
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 03:44 pm
@nimh,
Here she is promising to favor the corrupt labor union bosses, who take money from the workers, over the workers themselves, while thinking that will automatically get votes for her in Ohio, PA, etc. Enough to put her 50 points ahead in the polls even!
They aint got no clue. Then, or now.
0 Replies
ossobucotemp
2
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 03:52 pm
@nimh,
Nods.
I'll add there is another segment of folks in the US who were lucky to get a good education (UC schools used to be free, until Reagan) and didn't hold money as their major aim, just getting along as lower middle, who later in life ran into insurance affordability/health problems. I'm one of them. And then there are the many who owe for their education loans, forevermore, in some cases.These problems affect what students will choose as majors, some choosing for money related reasons over their particular personal interests, art, for example.
I wouldn't count people in this inbetween-land as elite - as in what is the insult of our times.
0 Replies
ossobucotemp
1
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 03:57 pm
@Debra Law,
You made me laugh..
0 Replies
blatham
5
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 04:33 pm
@nimh,
I've read your post three times now and I'm still a tad foggy on what it is you'd like to rant about. I gather it is your notion that Obama, the Dem party and leftists more generally bear some significant responsibility for what happened this election. And that this is not being adequately faced up to. I think that must be so in a kind of axiomatic way.
I think you're suggesting that Obama's style or method in politicking was naive, at least initially. I think that's so. But so does he. He's spoken to this quite forthrightly. My take on this was that (as we saw right from his speech 12 years ago) he perceived a national need to minimize the growing partisan divide. He did not succeed in this obviously but why he didn't is a very important question. Could another individual have done so? What sort of individual? Through what means would that have been achieved?
Or maybe the proper question here is, Was that a foolish hope and goal? If so, then that answer would presume a binary split in America that can't be healed but only approached as a zero sum situation. You just strive to win through essentially crushing the opposition. And if arguing something like that, then you are proposing that Dems operate like the right has been operating for several decades. Adding weight to this proposition is that it has worked for the right, thus Trump.
Am I in the region of your rant?
0 Replies
giujohn
-2
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 04:52 pm
@farmerman,
Cheese eaters don't eat inexpensive cheese...Only the snooty kind. Brie, camembert, danish havarti etc.
The "alt-right" is a political phenomenon that has flourished with the aid of Trump's rhetoric and Bannon's operations. There are undeniable racist and anti-Semitic elements in the movement. There's been a lot of reporting on this and the history is discernible (mainly southern and with roots back through the John Birch Society).
The video you show is not a comparable thing. It's a group of black juvenile criminals beating on someone and yelling that he voted Trump. Political activists? Do you really believe any of them did or can vote? Do you expect they spend hours on the internet arguing political ideas? Do you even know this victim was a Trump supporter? There's nothing other than that video and the claim made. Where do you get stuff like this? How did this come to your attention?
"Alt-Right" is just another word like "neo-conservative" to villianize a political opponent. How many Republicans do you actually think are vile, racist skinheaded idiots from the deep south? Don't answer, as I fear it would be some ridiculous number that has no basis in reality.
You honestly don't see a difference between someone spouting off anonymously on the internet and someone beating the **** out of someone else based on who they might have voted for (based on skin color)? And your main question was where did I find it?
Technically, I think layman is against the mesophilic cheeses like brie. I dont think hes against the thremophilics like Parmesan because that would be a racist slap against spaghetti.
So it's racist to dislike Parmesan but not racist to hate le Brie, huh? :ô
Me think Lay sees fromage as pretentious. He's happy with bland industrial stuff, which he sees as authentically American.
Quote:
Is it even possible to get raped by a block of Velveeta?? That would explain a lot though.
Obamacare became as much of a semi-effective muddle as it is (still useful, still a major improvement on the status quo, but also a frustrating mess that left many regular people alienated by high prices, high bureaucratic hurdles, and spotty implementation) because Obama was obsessed by the notion of "building (mutually beneficial) relationships and working out deals".
How much time, policy substance (see: public option) and political capital did he lose and waste, chasing for months and months after that mythically 'gettable' Republican swing vote that of course never materialized, because the GOP was never gonna let him get it anyway?
Amen.
0 Replies
Olivier5
2
Sat 21 Jan, 2017 05:05 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:
Cheese eaters don't eat inexpensive cheese...Only the snooty kind. Brie, camembert, danish havarti etc.
Olivier5 wrote:
Me think Lay sees fromage as pretentious. He's happy with bland industrial stuff, which he sees as authentically American.
I don't accept Debra's notion that the Democrat Party wanted to lose the election. It's clear the party establishement didn't want Bernie Sanders (and worked to prevent his success), for several probably good reasons, one being the unlikely prospect of him winning the election. It's also clear that the extended period of concerns about e mails & security , influenced peddling for the Clinton foundation, and an extended string of prevarications by Hillary about all these matters and her tenure as Sec State eroded her support within the party and among her opponents. Underlying all this was the fact that mainline Democrats had no alternative to Hillary: between her status as annointed successor and a strange sclerosis within the party during the Obama years, no viable alternatives had emerged during eight years, itself an unusual and remarkable occurrence. Finally Clinton ran a campaign without a a theme or purpose, other than the "war on women" and unbelieveble (coming from her) complaints about income inequity.
Trump struck some chords with an increasing segment of the public early in his campaign that few of us detected ( i certainly missed them). I believe this was indicative of some deep seated resentments that arose during the Obama years. It's easy to write that off as Racism, but one must recognize that the central result was that Americans of all colors, who had supported Obama in 200 & 2012, shifted to an avowed opponent of his policies in 2016. The cause is likely to be found in the conduct of his presidency.
Trump is riding a clearly populist wave in some ways analgous to the one that swept Andrew Jackson into office 180 years ago, and in some respects his rhetoric is reminiscent of Jackson. His policy directions are needed but we can all hope Trump doesn't, in office, share Jackson's faults in carrying it out. The the signs in that area are, so far, mixed.
Trump's blunt and direct rhetoric and his clear criticism of the whole existing extablishment of government has given him both leverage in making change and the obligation to do it quickly, effectively and without adverse effect - he has both increased his leverage and dropped his safety net. He does, in my view represent and indicate changes we do need to make, but he will need quick and visibly effective results and growing outreach to others to make it successful.
"Alt-Right" is just another word like "neo-conservative" to villianize a political opponent.
Both those terms were originally created by (or embraced by) those involved. "Neoconservatism" was a term conceived by Irving Kristol and his circle. "Alt-right" is a term used for some time by Bannon, for example.
That these terms came to have negative connotations is a consequence of familiarity with their ideologies and behaviors.
Quote:
You honestly don't see a difference between someone spouting off anonymously on the internet and someone beating the **** out of someone else based on who they might have voted for (based on skin color)?
As I said, they are different. Beating the **** out of someone is a far greater criminal and immoral act. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was either thing considered or weighed as a political phenomenon. That is, what consequences for the community? One instance of an assault has little effect on the community whereas a political movement like the alt-right certainly can have.
Quote:
And your main question was where did I find it?
No, not the main matter here at all. But given that I could find no verifying information nor press coverage (even in LA) on the incident and having also found that this video/incident could be found only in right wing media (checking google), that made me curious as to how it came to your attention. An email? Facebook? A website? I'm very curious.
Makes me remember a2ker dyslexia, a friend in real life and a man a lot of interesting people wanted to meet, and traveled to meet. He used to mention Velveeta from time to time, sardonically.
MINIMIZING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT PENDING REPEAL
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the "Act"). In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.
Sec. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.
Sec. 4. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.
Sec. 5. To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other
2
applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions.
Sec. 6. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
